Fascinating
Posted on 05/10/2007 3:57:38 AM PDT by rellimpank
On Monday the New York Times uncharacteristically gave front page space to a story about liberal scholars who have -- albeit reluctantly -- come round to the individual rights view of the Second Amendment. Among the most prominent is Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (the man reported to have pushed senators to oppose the Robert Bork nomination) who now teaches that any law-abiding American adult who wants a Colt Diamondback to safeguard his family or go 'coon hunting has the Second Amendment behind him.
Eight years ago scholars were predicting that Dr. Tribe's change of heart would "force judges and others to face the [individual rights] issue on its merits." That is precisely what happened
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
I remember reading several years ago about Tribe’s conversion. He’s extremely influential and his conversion had a lot to do with the DC Circuit Court’s decision.
Fascinating
I can’t believe Tribe is that influential. Does Tribe crash judge barbecues and twist their arms? I don’t think so.
More likely, the philosophical force of the pro-gun movement and its numbers of gun supporters in the tens of millions is making judges change their views. Conservative appointments by Bush is also a factor.
This story crediting Tribe is no more than liberals pounding the tub, getting in front of the parade and trying to take some kind of oblique credit for an increasingly popular idea - the right of the American citizen to be armed.
Even liberals I know are buying weapons now.
I think you’re under estimating Tribe’s influence. Liberals don’t look to groups of pro gun advocates for their direction, they look to liberals and Tribe is a very influential liberal intellectual.
Many times it’s not those in power but the those on the sidelines, like the think tanks on the left and right, that set the course of public policy. Tribe fits that description.
ping
With a history of actions clearly indicating that most all liberals have no brains of their own, Tribe is simply the latest in a long string of individuals designated the Brain of the liberal left.
I agree and in this case he came to the right conclusion. Go figure.
Tribe is that influential, especially among leftist constitutional legal scholars. His word on the constitution is taken as -- well, leftists have no gospel except for Roe v. Wade and Mao's little red book, but whatever would work as the next best thing... Hoplophobes were seriously angry at his switch to the individual rights paradigm, and it did affect the way law students are taught. He doesn't have to crash barbeques -- his constitutional law treatise is a standard reference work, and his take on the second amendment fits too well with the rest of his constitutional theory for it to be ignored.
Tribe would have been a nominee to the SCOTUS but for the fact that his strong opposition to Bork's constitutional interpretation meant that he couldn't make it past a republican congress. Stephen Breyer is an unmitigated intellectual lightweight compared to Tribe.
What influenced the courts who have ruled recently? By the rulings themselves it is clearly CONSERVATIVE scholarship on the issue.
The NY Times wants to short out the influence of conservative scholars by wildly over-exaggerating the importance of liberal scholars in this one intellectual war front that has already been clearly won -- by conservatives. Yes, conservative legal reasonings have won the gun rights war -- although it is not yet over, the outcome seems fairly clear.
The NY Times wants to make sure that "liberal" scholars will dominate the next Judicial selection go round.
Sigh. Whatever you say.
Brings to mind something about a “broke clock” or a “blind squirrel”.
Love your tag line. I do also.
In fact, all this is is the end of decades of anti gun efforts to keep gun rights advocates on their heels, focusing of defending against an absurd and abominable legal theory, instead of on restoring rights that have been lost.
However, when Parker is upheld, it will be an inexorable start toward the restoration of rights.
I can’t believe Tribe is that influential. Does Tribe crash judge barbecues and twist their arms? I don’t think so.
Tribe is very influential indeed. His views are taken seriously by law professors and judges all over the country, and both he and the professors who have been swayed by his published work on the Second Amendment teach many law students who then move into influential positions. Professors at law schools all over the country are put in the position of no longer being able to teach that it’s a closed matter that the Second Amendment protects only a “collective” right — they’ll be challenged by students pointing out that Tribe, a professor at one of the most respected law schools, has concluded the opposite, and backed up his position flawlessly — “collective” rights professor then looks like an intellectually dishonest ideologue to the rest of the students. The most a an anti-RKBA professor can get away with now is presenting this as a “controversy” in constitutional law.
Tribe has no doubt been teaching this view for somewhat longer than 8 years, and his students at the very prestigious Harvard Law School, often head directly into clerkships for federal judges, along with the students of other professors who have been influenced by Tribe’s work. From there, many of them move into positions at major law firms, the Justice Department, and as judges and professors. I wouldn’t write it off to coincidence that Silberman, who authored the brilliantly written decision, is a Harvard Law grad (and I wouldn’t be surprised if Tribe-era Harvard Law grads have been well represented among his recent and current clerks). Voting with him was Virginia Law grad (and, notably, BYU undergrad) Griffith. The poorly crafted dissent was authored by North Carolina Law grad Henderson.
It’s all adding up, and Tribe deserves a good deal of credit for loudly taking this intellectually honest position, which was very unwelcome among most of his peers. The rank and file citizen RKBA supporters are no longer without the support of respected legal scholars and judges.
Here’s hoping you are right.
On Constitutional issues, I believe the New Deal Commerce Clause is pretty well take as an article of faith.
The NY Times wants to short out the influence of conservative scholars by wildly over-exaggerating the importance of liberal scholars in this one intellectual war front that has already been clearly won -- by conservatives. Yes, conservative legal reasonings have won the gun rights war -- although it is not yet over, the outcome seems fairly clear.
And well they should. All they need to do is look at what recently happended to two wonderful young people here in Knoxvile, TN, who didn't take advantage of our shall issue law and pack heat in their vehicle. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1831205/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.