Liberals on the Supreme Court: Founders loved abortion and hated guns
By Brian Kirwin | Tuesday, June 29th, 2010 | PolicyI love reading Supreme Court opinions, because it’s so much fun seeing liberals fall over themselves changing their statements to match their political views that drive their decisions.
Reading John Paul Stevens whine about gun rights in yesterday’s McDonald v Chicago decision which favored citizens “right to keep and bear arms” made me shake my head.
Stevens opposes the First Amendment guarantee of citizen gun rights, because of “respect for the democratic process.”
HOWL! This is the same person who decided that the democratic process should be ignored when it comes to abortion.
Stevens argued against state legislatures who democratically enacted 24-hour waiting periods on abortions and mandated counseling services prior to abortions. Suddenly, a citizen who wants “to keep and bear arms” is blocked by Stevens and his sudden respect for the democratic process that banned gun ownership in Chicago.
Justice Scalia’s opinion takes aim at Stevens, saying his “approach, on the other hand, deprives the people of that power, since whatever the Constitution and laws may say, the list of protected rights will be whatever courts wish it to be.”
And that’s the problem with liberals like Stevens. Every day is a new day with them. The Constitution means one thing today, and it means something completely different tomorrow. The Constitution protects something it never mentions once, abortion, but doesn’t protect things it actually mentions like the right to keep and bear arms.
Stevens actually wrote “firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty.” Does he think we won our Independence from England with sticks and stones?
Goodbye Justice Stevens. May your likely replacement have something more to her view of the Constitution than a one-sided coin flip.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
4 Responses to "Liberals on the Supreme Court: Founders loved abortion and hated guns"
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by bearingdrift, BNN_HR. BNN_HR said: [BlogNetNewsHR] Bearing Drift: Liberals on the Supreme Court: Founders loved abortion and hated guns: I love read… http://bit.ly/beeRHJ [...]
I should read more of the Supreme Court decisions, this one had some interesting history in it. I find it interesting that the “conservative” justices seemed to base their decision more on fact, actual history, and what the Constitution actually says, while the “liberal” justices are more concerned about what people (primarily themselves) think is right. There is some irony in using the 14th amendment to increase the power of the Federal government (or you could say “increasing the application of the Constitution”) in regard to gun rights when the 14th amendment has been used to expand the role of the Federal government on so many issues. Liberals were/are stating that the 1st amendment applies to states, but the 2nd amendment does not. I am not sure what their stance is on the other amendments.
The bad thing about this decision is that it cuts a little bit more out of state power, but it is the right decision based on the 14th amendment.
Kingsmoothie, I admit loving to read these Opinions, and listening to the Oral Arguments, too.
And you are correct. Liberals have long used the 14th to expand their worldviews and it was interesting to read them try to oppose Second Amendment applications to their own path.
Did you all read Scalia’s concurring opinion? He absolutely skewers Stevens on legal reasoning. If you want to see the best ever written synthesis of what liberal justices do and why they shouldn’t, read Scalia’s dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey – it is an exercise in what is wrong with the “living document” crowd.
Leave your response