While the right to keep and bear arms is one of the “fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” that right “is not unlimited,” Roberts wrote
I’m astounded to see that written that way. The crowd that always angrily asks “WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND” thinks there is no limit to the rights of people to bear arms.
I’m pleasantly surprised to see most of the justices agreeing that the right “is not unlimited”. The only holdout is Thomas. I’m sure he came about his vote through quiet introspection and reflection. (Or, possibly, bribery…)
I haven’t kept up with his output, but when I was studying SCOTUS cases years and years ago, his opinions, mostly dissents or concurrences back in those days, were just bafflingly literal and lazy. Shit like, “I would declare the government’s actions unconstitutional because they’re regulating cars and the word ‘car’ is not in the Constitution.”
I can’t believe his thread of, I won’t even call it originalism, more like historical-context-free literalist textualism, has gained any traction.
I’ve found they do tend to be more blunt and straightforward. I think to understand them you have to start from the lens of his that stare decisis is a poor doctrine. Many of his dissents have such strong departures from the main opinion because of this. If you don’t presuppose things like the Wickard V Filburn case’s impact on the commerce clause dissents like Gonzalez v Raich, seem much more plausible.
the lens of his that stare decisis is a poor doctrine
I can imagine an abhorrent precedent like Dredd Scott leaving a bad taste in a young black lawyer’s mind, but it’s certainly an odd way to approach jurisprudence in a common law country, and it’s a pretty shit way to regulate a complicated body of law that relies on litigation for clarity. Combine it with a simplistic version of originalism once stare decisis is discarded, and I stand by my statement: bafflingly literal and lazy, and I’ll add arrogant. “I know best, the entire body of built up law that came before me is without value, and the decisions that real people make under their influence are gauze in the wind.” It invites constant relitigation and enables the most extreme kind of judicial activism while claiming to be above that fray.
This is obviously a victory for humanity overall, but does anyone think the Supreme Court could take this new definition and use it to take guns away from regular people? I’m an idiot so if anyone can tell me why this isn’t a possibility, I’ll be relieved. The thing is, if Trump getting elected again does lead to the fall of democracy in this country (which I doubt, but it’s definitely more possible than any other candidate we’ve ever had), couldn’t the Supreme Court take guns away from people who opposed him?
It’s a very good point you bring up. It’s worth pointing out that this case hinged on the fact that the guy whose gun got taken away had a restraining order against him, so that meant that a court had already determined that he posed a danger to someone. And there is historical basis for taking guns away from dangerous people.
One of the benefactors of this new approach, ironically enough, may be Hunter Biden. I saw an article saying that this ruling may help him appeal his conviction, because he is a first-time offender so no court had any reason to make a ruling on him at all.
I’m astounded to see that written that way. The crowd that always angrily asks “WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND” thinks there is no limit to the rights of people to bear arms.
I’m pleasantly surprised to see most of the justices agreeing that the right “is not unlimited”. The only holdout is Thomas. I’m sure he came about his vote through quiet introspection and reflection. (Or, possibly, bribery…)
I haven’t kept up with his output, but when I was studying SCOTUS cases years and years ago, his opinions, mostly dissents or concurrences back in those days, were just bafflingly literal and lazy. Shit like, “I would declare the government’s actions unconstitutional because they’re regulating cars and the word ‘car’ is not in the Constitution.”
I can’t believe his thread of, I won’t even call it originalism, more like historical-context-free literalist textualism, has gained any traction.
I’ve found they do tend to be more blunt and straightforward. I think to understand them you have to start from the lens of his that stare decisis is a poor doctrine. Many of his dissents have such strong departures from the main opinion because of this. If you don’t presuppose things like the Wickard V Filburn case’s impact on the commerce clause dissents like Gonzalez v Raich, seem much more plausible.
I can imagine an abhorrent precedent like Dredd Scott leaving a bad taste in a young black lawyer’s mind, but it’s certainly an odd way to approach jurisprudence in a common law country, and it’s a pretty shit way to regulate a complicated body of law that relies on litigation for clarity. Combine it with a simplistic version of originalism once stare decisis is discarded, and I stand by my statement: bafflingly literal and lazy, and I’ll add arrogant. “I know best, the entire body of built up law that came before me is without value, and the decisions that real people make under their influence are gauze in the wind.” It invites constant relitigation and enables the most extreme kind of judicial activism while claiming to be above that fray.
To be fair, the person usually saying that, Infringed is the biggest word they know.
This is obviously a victory for humanity overall, but does anyone think the Supreme Court could take this new definition and use it to take guns away from regular people? I’m an idiot so if anyone can tell me why this isn’t a possibility, I’ll be relieved. The thing is, if Trump getting elected again does lead to the fall of democracy in this country (which I doubt, but it’s definitely more possible than any other candidate we’ve ever had), couldn’t the Supreme Court take guns away from people who opposed him?
It’s a very good point you bring up. It’s worth pointing out that this case hinged on the fact that the guy whose gun got taken away had a restraining order against him, so that meant that a court had already determined that he posed a danger to someone. And there is historical basis for taking guns away from dangerous people.
One of the benefactors of this new approach, ironically enough, may be Hunter Biden. I saw an article saying that this ruling may help him appeal his conviction, because he is a first-time offender so no court had any reason to make a ruling on him at all.
Thank you for elaborating the actual case, this makes sense.