I 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.
