Alito’s opinion crushes even the notion of reinstating PorI, though. That’s a shame.
Incidentally, I wish I were a fly on the wall of the Mayor’s office in Chicago right now. Daley must be positively apoplectic. While I find that image quite satisfying, I hope he doesn’t hurt himself, if only so I can see him have to publicly choke this decision down.
May I assume you’re all free to vote Democratic now that the specter of losing those wonderful guns has been removed?
Some of us already did.
I concur. The Court got the outcome right, at least. Gonna take a while to read the opinion.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t take anything off the table. “Reasonable restrictions” are still allowed (presuming it hasn’t changed that from Heller) and mayors will still be stupid enough to try to grandstand and claim that de facto bans are reasonable restrictions. We’re going to see a lot more cases as cities try to sneak around this.
Stevens: “There’s no Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear handguns, even though we said there was two years ago.”
Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor: “We agree with Stevens, and also we think that the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states.”
Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy: “Sorry, but there’s still an individual right to keep handguns, like we said two years ago, and the Second IS incorporated against the states.”
Thomas: “I agree with you guys, but really there’s a better way to answer the question, which is that the Privileges and Immunities Clause actually means something, and we should trash 137 years of jurisprudence to get to this same result.”
Sure, as long as you promise that all the Democrats will embrace the spirit and the letter of this ruling, and not try to sneak around it or outright defy it?
Wow, Scalia’s concurrence was a gauntlet dropped right at the feet of Stevens, and it landed with a mighty thud. 200 years ago something like that would have resulted in a duel.
Am I really seeing a textualist talking about the spirit of a ruling as being important rather than simply the letter of it? 
That’s no more ironic than seeing the “liberal wing” of the Supreme Court dissent on the basis of states’ rights, which is more or less what happened in this case. It’s somewhat amusing, actually.
Um… textualists regard the text of the LAW is controlling. Not the text of decisions concerning the law.
I thought the allegation against the “liberal wing” of the Court was that they would invent the law as they went along, deciding matters in a results oriented fashion?
If so, then there would be nothing ironic at all about invoking (the fallacy of) “States’ rights” to support a prefered outcome. Indeed, it would be expected. There’s nothing in liberalism that is per se hostile to consideration of “States’ rights” whereas the sine qua non of textualism is that the spirit matters not.
And, more importantly, I don’t have the ability to make a light hearted comment about apparent inconsistencies to the “liberal wing” of the Court with any expectation they will read it.
Um… Supreme Court holdings are the law. I’m not at all sure why the “spirit” of one source of the law should be relevant, but consideration of the “spirit” of another source of the law is verboten, but I am sure there is a correct textualist answer.
Scalia accused Stevens of exactly that more or less in his concurrence.
Perhaps not, but this case put the Justices in exactly the opposite position that would have been expected. Nobody would expect the “liberal wing”* to assert states’ rights in an abortion case, for instance.
*I put that in quotes again because I’m using the common characterization, even though I don’t necessarily agree with that characterization as it is a somewhat puerile observation. Disagreement over the law ought not be characterized with political appellations.
This statement suffers from the fallacy of equivocation.
Yes, Supreme Court holdings are the law. As are circuit court holdings within their circuit, as are district court rulings in the particular case.
And, yes, textualists say the plain language of the law is what controls.
Bread crumbs are better than nothing.
Nothing is better than a big, juicy steak!
Therefore. breadcrumbs are better than a big juicy steak.
The reason textualists look to the plain language of the law is that legislatures alone have the power to create law; the judiciary should merely interpret that which the legislature, the creature of the people, has created. It would be an odd result indeed if the textualist view of the role of judiciary were flouted by merely pointing out that judicial decisions are also law, wouldn’t it?
More specifically, there is a distinction between case law and statutory law. And this is where your confusion rests.
Actually, not confused at all. The text of case law is controlling over the spirit behind case law just as it is with statutory law. It would be a sorry textulist Circuit Court judge who wrote an opinion that while the Supreme Court said this in their ruling, they actually meant that, and so that is what the law of the land actually is. I can just imagine Fat Tony’s opinion when that one comes up for cert.
Snuffling around looking for the intent of the Justices in making a decision is fundamentally no different for a textualist than snuffling around looking for the intent of legislators in passing a law (and by “no different” at this point, where I to be churlish, I would suggest means that it is done when it provides the textualist with the desired result, but that would be mean and wrong of me.)
From Breyer’s dissent:
Come now, Justice Breyer. Your examples of Massachusetts and New Jersey are cherry picked to the extreme. Those two states have some of the most onerous restrictions on firearms in the entire Union. The Brady Campaign rates them as 2 and 3, exceeded in restriction only by California. As for Rhode Island, it’s surrounded by Massachusetts and Connecticut, who comes in 4th place on the Brady Campaign’s scorecard.
Of COURSE they’re going to have substantially lower rates of ownership. It’s a miserable pain in the butt to even get a firearm, which is what this case was all about. And THEN he compares them to the three least populous states? It’s breathtaking in its blatant disingenuousness. And what’s worse is that this was joined by Sotomayor and Ginsberg. Wow.
Come back when you understand the difference between textualist and originalist.
A hint to get you started: the textualist doesn’t care what the intent of the legislators was.
Which is exactly what I am saying… sheesh.
Don’t look for intent in legislation, don’t look for intent in case law.