Another step in the right direction...

[Evermore]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

the Supreme Court is impressing me lately..

[Harrison]

I want to punch Feinstein in the face everytime that cunt speaks lol

Oh, and rock on for shooting down more hippy bullshit. Pun most definitely intended.

[Eziekial]

I can't believe rational people think that guns commit crimes. Or they feel they radiate evil or possess their owners like Christine.

[Eziekial]

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

ABSOLUTELY. Would he use that argument against someone trying to limit free speech? Did he take that position with the ruling on Habeas Corpus?

The Constitution is the backbone of our civilization. It is the foundation on which our country was built. I simply do not comprehend that line of reasoning from a Supreme Court Justice. He is not speaking to the intent of the amendment or the law (which one can argue is really what Court is suppost to do) but is speaking on the VALIDITY of the very document he is sworn to uphold and protect.

[numatu]

That quote by Stevens was one of the more frightening things I've read from a Justice in my lifetime. Not because of the topic of guns, but because of the precedence and line of reasoning that could be used to erode any right.

[Lueyen]

I've stated my view of the first of these prominent cases in granting Habeas Corpus privilege or any privilege or right of the people of this country as a automatic given to foreign nationals. This flying in the face of what was done following the recommendations contained in the majority opinion of a previous case that touched on the matter. I don't think it was a step in the right direction. Agree or disagree with the outcome it was not done in the way it was supposed to be done. It was justices on the Surpreme court, not interpreting the law, as the constitution does not in it's scope discuss the rights or privileges of anyone but "We the people of the United States", but forcing their own views on how our society should operate out side of what the constitution addresses. In short the constitutionally prescribed method for accomplishing what was handed down from on high by SCOTUS would be to introduce and pass legislation through congress. The court overstepped it's bounds.

Yesterday the court ruled that the death penalty was cruel and unusual based on the crime committed. This is nothing short of a reversal of a previous decision. Either Capital Punishment is or is not cruel and unusual punishment. The application of a penalty fitting the crime is a subjective decision that should be made by the people via proxy of the government. It is not the job of the court to determine what society considers reasonable punishment for a crime, that is the responsibility of the people through their elected representatives. This decision echoes so much of a state criminal conviction where a judge refused to give a molester prison time because she felt that would be cruel and unusual punishment because he was to short for prison. Thats right kids his lack of vertical height was taken into consideration as to whether the punishment fit the crime, and it is this same subjectivity that the court incorrectly exercised a few days ago. Again, agree or disagree with this decision, the court is overstepping it's bounds, by virtue of the fact that it already ruled that capital punishment was not cruel and unusual. (I should note here that I'm torn on the actual issue, my criticism is not so much with the result it's self but by how that result was obtained)

Finally we have todays decision, one finally that's outcome reflected that which the court should do... but only by a narrow margin. As has been already pointed out at least a few statements from the dissenting opinion, show a clearly greatly perverted view of what the constitution is all about. I guess I shouldn't be surprised given some of these judges previous opinions and rulings, but this one at least was obviously clear in the historical context and in the wording. I'd like to say I'm happy... but really I'm just relieved the court finally did it's job and didn't overstep it's bounds.

Unfortunately the general view held by the majority of our society, and I believe by more then a few justices themselves is that their charge is one they can exercise with impunity and no consequence of lack restraint. With lifetime appointment on the surface it might appear that a Supreme Court Justice answers to no one, and can therefore legislate from the bench instead of doing what they are actually supposed to be doing judging the applicability of laws subject to the ultimate law contained within the constitution, and doing so with impunity. Fortunately this is not the case, and any public official, yes even those appointed for life are subject to the check of impeachment and removal from their charge for either brazen personal misconduct or gross negligence in performing the duties of their office. The refusal of several justices on this court to exercise restraint and focus on their actual duties without going beyond the limits of their power may very well have that consequence in the near future.

The quote Eziekial posted is paramount: "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." I too read this in utter shock. The answer is an unequivocal yes. The framers absolutely wanted to limit the tools (power) available to elected officials, and keep it in the hands of the people. That someone who is in a position not subject to direct check by the people via election process takes his apparent view shows just how far this court has strayed.

[Reynaldo]

Of course Leuyen, for every 1 of you, there's one on the exact other side of the fence who thinks the first 2 rulings were spot on, and the overturning of the handgun ban is completely outrageous.

[Harrison]

Yeah, we call them hippies. They should be beaten with sticks.

[Arlos]

I feel the first ruling is absolutely spot-on, actually. It is not a seizing of power by the judicial branch, it is in reality a triumph of the Constitution, in that it was ruled to hold primacy always, and even be applicable for foreign nationals, so long as they are in the care of the US. I've said before, trying to pick and choose who the Constitution does and does not apply to is insanity, and part of an inevitable pattern of chipping away at its coverage. After all, if we decide today it doesn't apply to Group X, why not tomorrow decide it does not apply to Group Y, then Group Z, etc. No, no, a thousand times no. It does, and MUST apply to everyone within the scope of US control equally. Period.

As for the 2nd, I am neither here nor there. As all well know, I am opposed to the death penalty in general, so long as there exists a chance we would be putting to death an innocent person for a crime they did not commit. Given that multiple people have been freed off death row by DNA evidence, this is a very real threat. Not to mention, I think keeping someone locked up for 50 years+ until they die naturally is far more of a dire punishment than death. Death it's over, but years of prison....

For the 3rd, well, as I have said before, I would have preferred if the 2nd amendment never existed, as I think our national obsession with firearms is, on the whole, unhealthy. I also think it would not inflict on anyone's rights if people were forced to pass a firearms safety test before they could keep weapons at home. Own them all you want without passing such a test, just would have to store the guns at a firing range, etc. In any case, I don't think the ruling is ludicrous, and can certainly understand WHY it was made, I just wish the constitutional base for it didn't exist.

-Arlos

[Ginzburgh]

I saw a pic of a gun proponent holding a sign that said, "if guns kill people do pens make spelling errors?"

So true. lol.