The liberals, who want o change the constitution and the intent of those who wrote it are the activists and no amount of hand wringing or out and out lieing will change that.
Posted on 06/26/2008 8:44:48 PM PDT by Baron OBeef Dip
The Supreme Court's invalidation of the District of Columbia's handgun ban powerfully shows that the conservative rhetoric about judicial restraint is a lie. In striking down the law, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, joined by the court's four other most conservative justices, is quite activist in pursuing the conservative political agenda of protecting gun owners.
If the terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.
Never before had the Supreme Court found that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns. In fact, in 1939 (and other occasions), the court rejected this view. In effectively overturning these prior decisions, the court ignored precedent and invalidated a law adopted by a popularly elected government.
What's more, the court's interpretation is questionable. The text of the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous. Its second clause speaks of a right to "keep and bear arms," but its first clause suggests that this right exists because a "well-regulated militia" is essential. There is thus strong reason to believe that the 2nd Amendment only guarantees gun rights for those serving in a militia.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
You can’t have a citizen militia without private gun ownership and use, moron. I kept looking to see if this was satire or not... It’s amazing how liberals have a hard time reading clear language, but can find same sex marriage and abortion where there is no language that supports it.
But conservatives are ‘activists’ - Look, if we were activists, child molesters would still be on the execution list.
Chemerinsky is not a lawyer. He is a political activist, pure and simple.
didn't have to until you liberal trash tried to take away our rights.
And hey, dipstick? We are the militia.
The liberals, who want o change the constitution and the intent of those who wrote it are the activists and no amount of hand wringing or out and out lieing will change that.
EJ Dionne has been covering the same ground — the Talking Points must have gone out: If the Supreme Court pays attention to the Constitution, it is “judicial activism” and must be stopped.
This guy has a very short memory. Seems to me that the early colonists and founding fathers fought for the rights to own guns as the British attempted to seize them.
Don’t mix a liberal up with history, though. It ends for them sometime around 1962.
whatta twist of logic!
Excuse me, but doesn't the U.S. Constitution (explained by the Federalist Papers) trump precedent and laws?
Right on . . or find “diversity” where the law clearly states “NO person” . . .
When judges uphold the Constitution, they are called “activists” by liberals. When liberal judges ignore the Constitution and laws passed by Congress and make their own laws, liberals consider that perfectly reasonable.
It just highlights their double standard.
It is called the Constitution.
How about if Los Angeles decides that you DON’T have a basic right to freedom of the press?
DUmbsh**s.
Chemerinsky was one of my bar review instructors a decade or so ago. Standard-issue liberal and total bore. He’s not worthy to shine Scalia’s shoes.
In fact, the question they insist on attempting to keep open was decided. The right to bear arms is an individual right. Period. All the squinting and deconstructing and deliberate obtuseness in the world isn't going to make it ambiguous again.
"..President Clinton briefly considered Chemerinsky for an opening on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, his brief candidacy ended when Senate Republicans sent the word that his nomination would be dead on arrival..."
He was too nutty for the Nutty Ninth!
It’s “activism” when you uphold the ruling of a lower court and actually pay attention to the 2nd amendment. The ruling elite in this country, from the Democrat majority to the RINOS to the press is totally full of sh*t.
This guy is a professor of law at Duke University? I wonder if he was in the Group of 88.
You are correct Sir! The Second Amendment was always read to mean that citizens had a right to bear arms. It was only after the looney liberal lemmings of the licentious left began reading their nonsense into it that its clear meaning became obtuse. The Supreme Court finally cleared up for the nit wit ban guns crowd that we on the right knew all along. The left is totally devoid of any semblance of integrity.
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.