Annie Git Yer Gun--Even In D.C.

Via the Scotusblog:

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales. [Opinion here.]

Well, the solution to yesterday's problem, seems to be this: Keep your child with you at all times, arm yourself and shoot the f__________. (John won't let me use swear words. Sometimes they just fit.)

The thing that seem unfathomable to me is that four justices voted against this obviousness. Anyone who reads the constitution, sees the right to own a gun. Only lawyers twisting themselves into self-righteous pretzels could see this any other way.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Supreme Arrogance and Common Sense

Even Barack Obama feels the Supreme Court overreached with their asinine ruling where they came to the conclusion that there is a "cultural consensus" against capital punishment for child rapists. It seems that there's a cultural consensus, alright, and it is exactly opposite to the court's. Here is what Obama said:

Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children, a crime he said states have the right to consider for capital punishment.

"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."

Well, duh. The constitution is clear. The justices are pushing for a situation where the death penalty is never permissible. I mean, if men who rape five year olds don't qualify to get a one-way ticket to meet their Maker, who does?

And to address the fear of "murdering the witness" should the death penalty be allowed.. The court doesn't seem to follow their own logic. What will happen is this: People will take the law into their own hands. When justice isn't swift or just, people get frustrated. And who would blame the guy who goes after the child rapists? And these guys are not exactly treated well in prison. That's not cruel and unusual? So the justices essentially condone street justice for these freaks.

Here's the consensus, since the justices seem to be breathing the same elite rarefied air: Normal, average people have children. They watch the news and know that there are depraved people who are incapable of rehabilitation. A person who can do these things to a child ceases to demonstrate any ability to function in society. Period. For the safety of the community, they need to be dead. I don't want my tax dollars feeding this animal. I don't want my tax dollars spent protecting him in prison. I want him dead. And I'm not alone. Every person I know, liberal or conservative feels the same way. I call that a consensus.

Some truths are so self-evident they are call common sense. The Supreme Court's decision yesterday demonstrated a decided lack of this increasingly rare trait. They also demonstrated that they have no problem taking legislative power as their own.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Because A Child Rapist's Life Is Worth Saving

The Supreme Court issued another stellar ruling: It is "disproportionate" to take the life of a child rapist. That would be cruel and unusual punishment. As opposed to what the child endured, which falls into the category "lucky to be alive". Lucky, lucky child! Here is a sampling of the reasoning: (Opinion here.)

Part of the Court’s rationale for nullifying a death sentence for raping a child was that the child victim gets enlisted, perhaps repeatedly, to recount the crime, forcing on the child “a moral choice” that the youngster is not mature enough to make. “The way the death penalty here involves the child victim in its enforcement can compromise a decent legal system,” Justice Kennedy wrote.

More here. Ann Althouse notes Alito's dissent:

ADDED: In dissent, Justice Alito (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas) emphasizes the breadth of the decision:
The Court today holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the Court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be. The Court provides two reasons for this sweeping conclusion: First, the Court claims to have identified “a national consensus” that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child; second, the Court concludes, based on its “independent judgment,” that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with “ ‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’ ”

Leaving aside that gem, the Court took more rights from the state to punish as they see fit. Taking away states rights has become a disturbing trend of the Supreme Court.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Whales Lose Supreme Court Case and the NYT Laments and Gnashes Teeth

Check out the first paragraph of David Stout's opinion piece, I mean, hard-hitting New York Time's reportage:

The Supreme Court sided with the White House on Monday in two cases involving national security and worries about the environment, strengthening the Bush administration’s drive, at least for now, for sweeping executive powers in the post-9/11 world.

"At least for now..". Sounds ominous, David. When Democrats run things and put whale-loving justices on the Supreme Court, all will be good. Hold on, Mr. Stout, with Obama it will all be better soon. And here is what has got Mr. Stout so upset:

In the sonar case, the justices said they would review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which on Feb. 27 upheld most of a lower court ruling that banned high-powered sonar within 12 miles of the coast. Environmental groups had sued to block the use of the sonar because they feared harm to whales and dolphins.

The Bush administration has argued that the sonar training exercises, used to practice tracking of hostile submarines, are vital to national defense, that the possible harm to marine life was being exaggerated and that, in any event, military need should take precedence over the welfare of water creatures.

“This is an issue that is essential to national security, and we welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to review this case,” Lt. Sean Robertson, a Navy spokesman, told The Associated Press.

Southern California’s coastal waters are home to dozens of species of whales, dolphins, seals and sea lions, including nine species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened. Marine biologists have said the sonar in question generates extreme pressure that can disorient and injure the creatures, disrupting their feeding and mating schedules and causing injuries. The Navy has insisted that it takes adequate protective measures, but the Natural Resources Defense Council disagreed, and sued to stop the tests.

The government and military hates children and animals. And the Supreme Court sided with the haters! It's just all too much. In addition, the Supremes said that the government doesn't have to do environmental studies for every portion of the desolate desert that separates the U.S. and Mexico. The administration has unfettered ability to put up that blankety-blank fence. Horrors!

So many things jump out at me from this stupid article. First, the writer doesn't even attempt neutrality. He makes no pretense whatsoever about his bias and just hangs it out there for all to see. This is the New York Times, people, the paper of record. Second, could the outrage be directed at anything sillier? I mean, come on. The Navy shouldn't be able to do sonar maneuvers that would be vital, I should think, should the West-coasters want a decent defense if they're ever attacked. And who would scream the loudest if a fleet of Chinamen stormed Malibu? Third, about the fence and environmental studies. Anyone who has been along the border of Mexico and the U.S. knows it ain't the loveliest terrain. What the hell is there to protect environmentally? Good grief. I get not wanting to hurt whales and dolphins and I'm guessing the Navy doesn't want to. But what is out there in the vast sandy emptiness that needs to be protected?

Soon, though, David Stout will be psyched. Obama will win, put up justices who love babies and animals and the world will be a less mean place. I get weepy thinking about it, but not for the reason Stout does.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Wanna Vote? Bring A Picture I.D.--UPDATED

The Supreme Court upheld Indiana's law requiring voters to bring a photo ID. It makes no sense not to have this law. Sheesh! You can't buy a six pack of bud without an ID but you can vote?

This finding is a major blow to the Democrats intent on having all those illegal immigrants and dead people vote for them. It's been a bad day for the Lefties. Aw.....

UPDATE: Ann Althouse has more on the breakdown of the decision.

Come Heller High Water

Hi boys and girls! This here is a gun. It's a SIG 229 to be exact and my brother owns one and I like it. A lot. He's on a gun forum and those guys voted for me when I was up for some Blog award a year ago and I just want to give 'em a shout out.

If you don't know, you should know that a big case is before the Supreme Court regarding your right to bear arms. In Washington D.C. there is a hand gun ban and it's being challenged and the case moved through the courts. The case has huge implications for gun owners everywhere and for those who might want to own a gun in the future.

Glenn Reynolds has been all over the Heller case and has been giving great updates. This is how the Wall Street Journal sums up the case (which will be decided by May):

Judging by Tuesday argument, the High Court has a majority in support of the circuit court opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts asked why the Framers included the word "people" if the Amendment only applied to militias. Justice Antonin Scalia discussed the importance the Framers attached to providing citizens the means to protect against tyrannical government. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the Court's swing vote, informed all in attendance that "In my view, there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."

The debate also focused on what restrictions, if any, government could impose on such an individual right. Several Justices had particular fun with Solicitor General Paul Clement, who was charged with defending his (and thus the Bush Administration's) odd split-the-baby amicus brief arguing that while the Second Amendment is an individual right, the D.C. Circuit opinion would bar governments from banning even such heavy weapons as machine guns.

In fact, that opinion leaves ample room for a government to regulate machine guns, bazookas and the like -- much as even the First Amendment protects speech as an individual right but not as a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. We hope the Supreme Court agrees with Judge Silberman that the Second Amendment does protect the right to own pistols, rifles and other guns of the kind the American Founders believed were needed to protect liberty.

Amen to that. No one knows until the court hands down the decision what the outcome of the case will be, but it's important. Jay at The Right to Bear Arms notes this:

The Toledo Blade wades into the Heller case and repeats some of the same drivel we hear all the time:

No sane public purpose would be served if the court manipulates the wording of the Second Amendment to infer that Americans have an unfettered right to carry guns. The amendment says no such thing.

Moreover, while many people in the early days of the nation did carry weapons, they were single-shot muskets and not the rapid-fire Glock 9s or AK-47s that are the firearms of choice of modern-day criminals.

Don’t you just love how the anti-gun crowd loves to talk about what the constitution doesn’t say when it comes to the second amendment? I’m certain if we asked the editorial board of the Toledo Blade about the word abortion not being mentioned at all in the constitution, they’d stutter and spittle and tell us how that’s ‘different.’ Bottom line is, what part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand?

As for the type of weapons, all the talk about Glock’s and AK-47’s is a non sequitur. Free speech rights don’t change because we have the Internet now and they had quills and parchment paper back then.

It is uncomfortable to think about these days, but the 2nd Amendment is a hedge against governmental tyranny. I don't know what could be done against the government's arsenal, but an armed citizen can do more than an unarmed one, that's for sure. The right to protect life and land is the right to protect liberty. The Heller case is important for everyone--gun owners or not.

Clarence Thomas Quotes

John Hawkins excerpts his favorite quotes from Justice Thomas' new autobiography. I look forward to reading it. My favorite:

(Daddy) warned us that if we died, he'd take our bodies to school for three days to make sure we weren't faking, and we figured he meant it. He also told us that our teachers, like Aunt Tina, were always right. Even if they weren't, it did no good to complain to him. Doing so was sure to get us in worse trouble. --p. 15

Life's A Bowl of Blueberries

I've been posting light--Vacation Bible School, relatives and what not. But Mama is on a roll this week. She has all sorts of insight into the SCOTUS decision about Campaign Finance (the reason McCain will never, ever get my vote). The "R" word is spoken--that's right America, you're in a recession.

And then there's the Blueberries. Which, by the way, I spent yesterday afternoon with my beloved children ad nieces and nephews blueberry picking. A thunderstorm was rolling in and the air cooled and we picked 42 pounds. It was meditative pulling those clumps of blueberries into the basket, hearing the bugs buzz. I plan on planting some bushes in my backyard.

Mama says that global cooling is happening and her proof is in the blueberries and some hard data.

Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Much gnashing of teeth ensued after the Supreme Court decision upholding the law to ban partial birth abortion. For the libertarians the fear ranged from personal rights infringement to intrusion on a method for a livelihood. For the leftists and feminists, all manner of fear and anger was expressed at a woman's rights being taken away.

In all this, I read nary an article about the barbarity of partial birth abortion and why we, as a civilized society, should find the "procedure" abhorrent.

Most people, given the opportunity to watch this procedure would find it abhorrent and do. Will the Left take this issue to the legislators or will they concede this issue in face of the public will?

2nd Amendment Woes

George Will:

If the Supreme Court reverses the appeals court's ruling and upholds the D.C. gun law, states and localities will be empowered to treat the Second Amendment as the D.C. law does: as a nullity. This will bring the gun control issue -- and millions of gun owners -- back to a roiling boil. That is not in the interest of the Democratic Party, which is supported by most ardent supporters of gun control.

The bigger problem of course is the local governments running amok if all laws implied in the constitution are a "nullity". There are some who would like this power very much.

The right to bear arms ostensibly makes life harder for law enforcement because everyone, not just criminals, is armed. This isn't true in practice (see Britain), but that's the argument. Fundamentally the argument for taking away liberties is always the same: a better and safe society. That the facts don't support this, doesn't matter--as long as the government makes an effort to make life better, that's all that counts.

H/T Glenn Reynolds

Retired Justices Should Live Anonymous Lives

There is a certain mystery about the Supreme Court. The gorgeous architecture, the imposing inner-sanctum, just the idea that big thoughts are thunk there all day long. It's kind of a living fantasy of fairy-dust intelligence.

"They're smarter than us," we think. And that's a big relief, because most days we're hemming and hawing over whether to use spicy brown mustard or the old fashioned yellow stuff on our turkey sandwich for lunch.

And then, Sandra Day O'Connor, retired-but-still-public-figure, former Justice goes on Hardball with a guest-host (not even the super-salivating usual host) to answer questions about her participation in the Iraq Group and it's revelatory findings.

Her showing doesn't inspire much confidence. The clip is long....watch near the middle to end.

I guess I feel the same way about Clinton and Carter and to some extent Bush I. Presidents Ford and Reagan left gracefully and quietly. I wish all all of them would.

Supreme Court Allows Voter I.D.

For now (via Rick Hasan). They also don't like the switcheroos of procedures, laws, etc. too close to voting. Both of these sentiments make sense.

The Supreme Court said: "Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised....Countering the State's compelling interest in preventing voter fraud is the plaintiffs' strong interest in exercising the 'fundamental political right' to vote. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 336 (1972) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the likely effects of Proposition 200 are much debated, the possibility that qualified voters might be turned away from the polls would caution any district judge to give careful consideration to the plaintiffs' challenges."

This also signals more involvement by the Supreme Court in voting matters and the electoral process. Depending upon the side you're on, that could be a good or bad thing.

I'm all for anything that will eliminate voter fraud. Well, not anything. I wouldn't want the government to have finger prints of everyone, that's for sure. But a Driver's License seems like such a small thing to help prevent dead people from voting and double votes. Also, I wouldn't want the election swung by 30 million illegal immigrants.

Tips: Instapundit, Volokh Conspiracy has more