Comments on: More on the Heller decision

By: MORE ON HELLER « Citizen Tom

MORE ON HELLER « Citizen Tom — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:38:58 +0000

[...] 2, 2008 · No Comments This the sequel. As with the first one, Bearing Drift (here) has already posted this email from Senator Ken Cuccinelli, but I think it is worth giving as many [...]

By: Senator Ken Cuccinelli’s Analysis of the U.S. Supremes Gun Rights Decision « Citizen Tom

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:57:42 +0000

[...] 30, 2008 · No Comments Bearing Drift (here) has already posted this email from Senator Ken Cuccinelli, but I think it is worth giving as many [...]

By: Chase

Chase — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:01:31 +0000

Right. Find the word “abortion” in the Constitution, and you would have a valid argument.

For that matter, find where in the First Amendment it says that you can contribute money to a political campaign — but only so much.

And, yes, that is a dig at John McCain.

By: billyw

billyw — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:26:51 +0000

Sure the conservative judges are commited to Constitution as long as they can ignore pesky little details like perfactory clauses that define admendments. It must be quite a feeling to love the constitution so much that you cut out whole parts that are cluttering it up.

But considering how they bend words like “cruel and unusual punishment” so that anything goes, it’s not a surprise.

By: Chase

Chase — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:18:58 +0000

Also, I would add, having attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court twice, there are few bigger thrills (if you are geek such as I) than seeing all of this in action.

One of the big moments (that I didn’t realize at the time) was during the arguments over Virginia’s cross burning statute. During oral arguments, Justice Thomas interrupted the plaintiff’s attorney to ask a question. He had a big, booming, deep voice. It seemingly came out of nowhere.

I know now, but did not know at the time, that Thomas rarely speaks during oral arguments. For him to interject was a big deal.

Of course, Virginia won that one in a slam dunk, 9-to-0. The only missing element was Chief Justice Rhenquist, who was ill and not in attendance.

And it is true that you can take the temperature of the Court by listening to the questioning from the Justices. It was clear that day that Virginia would win the case. It was only a matter of what the vote would be.

I really have a hard time finding words to express how awe-inspiring it is to be seated there and see the Justices file in and take their seats. It is, to be blunt, pretty cool.

I highly recommend it.

By: DCH

DCH — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:41:22 +0000

Good point about Lowell & Co, Chase. I personally still have not read the opinion (out of town this weekend) but when I do, I hope to share a few quotes and thoughts of my own.

By: Chase

Chase — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:59:20 +0000

Excellent analysis by Sen. Cuccinelli.

I can’t help but notice that it has been several days now, and there is still no input (though it was promised as soon as Lowell could read the opinions) from our friend Lowell or any of his cohorts at the formerly-known-as-Raising Kaine (save a post that simply relayed Jim Moran’s statement).

Could it be that they are flummoxed as to how to react, given Jim Webb’s strong embrace of the Heller decision?

Oh, what to do? You are adamantly pro-gun control, but one of your heroes is on the other side.

Oddly, they found time to read the opinions and therefore opine on the case involving Guantanamo Bay detainees. Oh, wait … that one came down on their side. Go figure.

Such as it is in the liberal’s world.