Author Topic: Merged - SCOTUS decision on Heller (Read 59583 times)

Balog · « **Reply #25 on:** June 25, 2008, 05:46:39 AM »

Scalia is pretty conservative, isn't he? If he's writing for the majority I'd say that's a good sign.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #26 on:** June 25, 2008, 05:47:35 AM »

I was just researching him and I would agree. Sounds good for our side if he indeed is writing the opinion.

K Frame · « **Reply #27 on:** June 25, 2008, 05:49:44 AM »

"I assume "writing Heller" is fancy speak for ruling in his favor? So they'll rule individual right?"

No, it simply means that he's the judge who is writing the majority opinion of the court. There's always a judge who writes a majority opinion. Other judges who were in the majority can also write opinions. Then there's usually a judge who writes a minority opinion, basically a response as to why those who voted against the majority did so. That has no true weight of law, as I understand it.

K Frame · « **Reply #28 on:** June 25, 2008, 05:52:51 AM »

Ah, I'm going to merge this in with the thread in Political.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #29 on:** June 25, 2008, 05:55:08 AM »

Mike, for what it's worth, here's a link to what Michael O'Shea, who is a law prof at the Oklahoma City University, has to say about it

K Frame · « **Reply #30 on:** June 25, 2008, 05:58:58 AM »

Thanks for that link.

Damn...

I know very little about Dianah Ross and the Supremes. I knew Scalia was moderately gun friendly, but not to that level. If he's writing the majority that would likely be very good news.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #31 on:** June 25, 2008, 06:00:56 AM »

The "common use" thing would certainly kick the AWB forever to the curb as absolutely unconstitutional.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #32 on:** June 25, 2008, 06:07:50 AM »

The real question is, will we be able to use later litigation to expand gun rights from what exists today. Maybe throw out 822 (o) in a later suit.

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #33 on:** June 25, 2008, 06:10:30 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on June 25, 2008, 05:07:50 AM

The real question is, will we be able to use later litigation to expand gun rights from what exists today. Maybe throw out 822 (o) in a later suit.

I'll drink to the idea.

seeker_two · « **Reply #34 on:** June 25, 2008, 07:00:36 AM »

I can't remember the last time I've been so nervous about a SCOTUS ruling.....

....this could mark the beginning of the end of strict gun control legislation......

...or the beginning of the end of the concept of "individual rights" in all matters....

....stay tuned....

Mabs2 · « **Reply #35 on:** June 25, 2008, 07:04:41 AM »

Quote from: seeker_two on June 25, 2008, 06:00:36 AM

I can't remember the last time I've been so nervous about a SCOTUS ruling.....

....this could mark the beginning of the end of strict gun control legislation......

...or the beginning of the end of the concept of "individual rights" in all matters....

....stay tuned....

I can't remember ever paying attention to SCOTUS doing anything at all.
Earlier I got butterflies in my stomach when the anchor on Fox mentioned a ruling soon.

longeyes · « **Reply #36 on:** June 25, 2008, 07:28:04 AM »

If reason prevails our side has a clear and decisive majority. But recent 5-4 decisions by SCOTUS certainly must give us pause. Of course the Justices are well aware that an anti-2A decision would be momentous and become a huge issue in the Presidential campaign. In my mind the issue is just how arrogant The Five really are; I would put nothing past them at this juncture. Let us hope that sanity rules the day.

lacoochee · « **Reply #37 on:** June 25, 2008, 07:36:22 AM »

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

Hopefully they remember this when they make their decision on whether they rip up the agreement we all use to deal with each other, the constitution.

There is a reset button.

Bigjake · « **Reply #38 on:** June 25, 2008, 08:20:42 AM »

Quote from: seeker_two on June 25, 2008, 06:00:36 AM

I can't remember the last time I've been so nervous about a SCOTUS ruling.....

....this could mark the beginning of the end of strict gun control legislation......

...or the beginning of the end of the concept of "individual rights" in all matters....

....stay tuned....

Only on paper, according to them, my friend. cool

charby · « **Reply #39 on:** June 25, 2008, 09:02:53 AM »

Maybe it will be a 9-0 decision and a few SC Justices are going to give opinions why. That would awesome and I bet Sarah Brady might have a stroke with that decision.

K Frame · « **Reply #40 on:** June 25, 2008, 09:17:32 AM »

I'd say that the chances of it being a 9-0 decision, especially with that toad Souter, are perhaps a billion to one.

And I'm not exaggerating.

Remember what he did with his vote on government emminent domaine?

Scout26 · « **Reply #41 on:** June 25, 2008, 09:39:41 AM »

Well I was wrong on the date. But I'll give it a go on the count either 8-1 (Stevens) or 7-2 (Stevens and Souter)

Scalia writing the decision makes it a slam dunk and could indicate a rather broad decision.

K Frame · « **Reply #42 on:** June 25, 2008, 09:51:43 AM »

You're forgetting the Ruth Baeder-Ginsberg factor.

No way in hell does she vote on the side of the individual when it comes to firearms.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #43 on:** June 25, 2008, 09:56:51 AM »

I thought there was some speculation based on the oral arguments that she might be in favor of an individual rights decision. I guess it depends on how honest of a liberal she is.

Monty · « **Reply #44 on:** June 25, 2008, 10:24:42 AM »

Quote from: scout26 on June 25, 2008, 08:39:41 AM

Well I was wrong on the date. But I'll give it a go on the count either 8-1 (Stevens) or 7-2 (Stevens and Souter)

Scalia writing the decision makes it a slam dunk and could indicate a rather broad decision.

Read somewhere Scalia is the only justice without a majority decision so far this session so I think that is a very positive sign it will go our way, only real question I think is how far.

Monty

K Frame · « **Reply #45 on:** June 25, 2008, 10:25:24 AM »

Ginsberg was one of the dissenters is US v. Lopez. She argued that the government had the right to set gun-free school zones under the frigging COMMERCE clause!

The only commerce going on in most schools is drug dealing, for Christ's sake!

K Frame · « **Reply #46 on:** June 25, 2008, 10:29:30 AM »

Uh oh...

Scalia just issued a majority ruling in another case...

I hope that doesn't mean anything...

Manedwolf · « **Reply #47 on:** June 25, 2008, 10:30:20 AM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on June 25, 2008, 09:29:30 AM

Uh oh...

Scalia just issued a majority ruling in another case...

I hope that doesn't mean anything...

Hopefully not Ginsburg.

"It's not an individual right because we have police now, and they can protect you..." Tongue

charby · « **Reply #48 on:** June 25, 2008, 10:36:28 AM »

Quote from: Manedwolf on June 25, 2008, 09:30:20 AM

Quote from: Mike Irwin on June 25, 2008, 09:29:30 AM

Uh oh...

Scalia just issued a majority ruling in another case...

I hope that doesn't mean anything...

Hopefully not Ginsburg.

"It's not an individual right because we have police now, and they can protect you..." Tongue

but an earlier SCOTUS opinion that we don't have the rights of police protection

Scout26 · « **Reply #49 on:** June 25, 2008, 12:38:31 PM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on June 25, 2008, 08:51:43 AM

You're forgetting the Ruth Baeder-Ginsberg factor.

No way in hell does she vote on the side of the individual when it comes to firearms.

Ginsburg has quoted/used the 2A in other rulings to support "Right of the People" clause. It think she might vote with us. If it's 6-3 then it's Stevens, Souter and Ginsberg.

News:

Author Topic: Merged - SCOTUS decision on Heller (Read 59583 times)