Supreme Court
I'm a Supreme Court groupie. I love to watch how they end up doing things. And this most recent decision, in District of Colombia v. Heller, was *very* interesting to me.
The short version of the story is that the Court ruled, 5-4, that the handgun registration ban in Washington, DC, was unconstitutional. I'm not here to talk about gun control. But what's going on in the Court itself is absolutely fascinating for a number of different reasons:
1) Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are generally considered to be conservative justices, while Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are considered liberal. Justice Kennedy is pretty moderate, though some consider him to be leaning toward conservative. The interesting thing is that on close votes that are conservative vs. liberal battles, it often ends up being Kennedy who decides it. This decision was no exception. Some people are calling it the "Kennedy Court".
2) This was a big victory for Scalia for a number of reasons. First off, Roberts (The Chief Justice) let him write the opinion, which is a nod to him being influential and respected on the issue. Also, he was probably instrumental in swaying Kennedy to the conservative side for this vote (though we have no proof of that because their discussions are private). And finally because...
3) The primary dissent was written by Justice Stevens, the most respected member of the liberal wing of the court. His main argument in the dissent was that the 2nd amendment was intended to refer to keeping local militias armed in the event of foreign invasion. This is a common argument in favor of gun control. The amazing thing is that Stevens is making it. The liberal wing of the court has rejected the idea of trying to rule by "original intent" in the constitution. In his dissent, Stevens does just that. This is a significant departure, and opens up the "original intent" avenue, a stance Scalia believes in, for arguments in the future.
Yeah. I'm a nerd.
For what it's worth, I agree with the dissent. But that doesn't keep me from being impressed with Scalia.
-ATW
The short version of the story is that the Court ruled, 5-4, that the handgun registration ban in Washington, DC, was unconstitutional. I'm not here to talk about gun control. But what's going on in the Court itself is absolutely fascinating for a number of different reasons:
1) Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are generally considered to be conservative justices, while Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are considered liberal. Justice Kennedy is pretty moderate, though some consider him to be leaning toward conservative. The interesting thing is that on close votes that are conservative vs. liberal battles, it often ends up being Kennedy who decides it. This decision was no exception. Some people are calling it the "Kennedy Court".
2) This was a big victory for Scalia for a number of reasons. First off, Roberts (The Chief Justice) let him write the opinion, which is a nod to him being influential and respected on the issue. Also, he was probably instrumental in swaying Kennedy to the conservative side for this vote (though we have no proof of that because their discussions are private). And finally because...
3) The primary dissent was written by Justice Stevens, the most respected member of the liberal wing of the court. His main argument in the dissent was that the 2nd amendment was intended to refer to keeping local militias armed in the event of foreign invasion. This is a common argument in favor of gun control. The amazing thing is that Stevens is making it. The liberal wing of the court has rejected the idea of trying to rule by "original intent" in the constitution. In his dissent, Stevens does just that. This is a significant departure, and opens up the "original intent" avenue, a stance Scalia believes in, for arguments in the future.
Yeah. I'm a nerd.
For what it's worth, I agree with the dissent. But that doesn't keep me from being impressed with Scalia.
-ATW