Skip to comments.Breyer Push For More Protection Illustrates Elite Double Standard
Posted on 05/20/2012 8:20:50 AM PDT by marktwain
USA --(Ammoland.com)- An early May robbery at the Washington, D.C. home of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was the second time the jurist has been victimized since February, The Washington Post reported Thursday. While no one was home in this latest incident, the earlier one involved the jurist and his wife being confronted by a machete-wielding home invader at their Caribbean vacation house.
The robbery comes a month after Congress allocated nearly $1 million to hire 12 new Supreme Court police officers, according to The Hill, Fox News related in a follow-up report. Breyer had been among the group pushing for that greater protection after U.S. District Judge John Roll was among six people killed in a gunmans rampage at a Tucson shopping mall last year
That Breyer demands armed police protection provided at taxpayer expense illustrates no small amount of elitist hypocrisy considering his dissent in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case, in which the Supreme Court majority held the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals in federal enclaves to possess a firearm in the home for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense.
We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment, Breyer wrote in an opinion shared by Justices Souter and Ginsberg. The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not.
Breyer dissented again in the Chicago v. McDonald case. Joined by Justice Sotomayor and again by Justice Ginsburg, Breyer rejected the application of the Second Amendment to the individual states.
If left to Stephen Breyer, forget bearing arms. Americans wouldnt even be allowed to keep them in their homes, and it would all be perfectly consistent with shall not be infringed. Despite an earlier Supreme Court ruling that police have no Constitutional duty to protect individuals, Breyer deems those same individuals to have no Constitutionally-recognized right to possess firearms for self-defense. And naturally, no such restrictions apply to his taxpayer-subsidized armed bodyguards. David Codrea
David Codrea in his natural habitat
Note: A version of this column with source reference links is posted at Gun Rights Examiner.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He is a field editor for GUNS Magazine, and a blogger at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance. Read more at www.DavidCodrea.com.
Some animals are more equal.
He’s been robbed twice, including once while present....facing a machete-wielding home invader....and he STILL doesn’t ‘get’ the need for citizens to be armed for self-protection.
Sorry............the man’s a dolt.
So if they are so worried, let them hire (at their expense) personal body guards.
Caribbean vacation house, huh? So basically Breyer wants the virtual equivalent of Secret Service protection to protect him and his family wherever he goes? Nice. I wish he would stay down there.
I have *absolutely* no problem with government officials,including Supreme Court justices,taking steps to ensure the safety of themselves and their families.The *big* problem I have is that these same officials,and at least several of these justices,would deny *me* the right to do the same.
Wait a minute
in the Caribbean
what does he expect?
Breyer has a place here in NH. In fact it’s right across the road from that nutcase Ed Brown and his wife, Elaine. Of course he probably doesn’t have much to worry about up here in the sticks but he has plenty of No Trespassing signs and who knows what else all along the road frontage of his property.
In case you forgot who Ed Brown is, here’s a link:
“Statists expect to recieve special treatment. It may be necessary, but these events were not related to Justice Breyer’s Supreme Court status.”
Ironic indeed, although one would expect to see more attacks that are related to his dictatorial position. In the age of juridical dictatorship(judges able to make law) killing a Federal Supreme court “judge” has a far more lasting effect a president. Frankly I’m surprised more of them have not been knocked off.
As for his D.C. ruling I disagree with him on the simple fact that D.C. is under the “exclusive” domestic jurisdiction of congress. The same Congress that is spelled out in the 2nd amendment.
The Illinois case however is completely wrong and he was right to rule against it. The leglsator and Constitution of the State of Illinois is most defiantly NOT congress, nor does congress have any legitimate domestic jurisdiction over the state of Illinois.
Article 1 Section 8 clearly only give congress such domestic authority over D.C. and federal instillation. So how does D.C. manage to pass laws and elect its own government? To put it simply illegally. To put it precisely congress bypasses its constitutional obligation to exclusive exclusive jurisdictional by ratifying everything D.C. does.
So even by congresses own twisted logic they passed the D.C. gun ban, not D.C.
Dear Mr Breyer (I’ll not use the word “justice”, since - being a liberal - you have no clue what that is.)
Pack heat, dumb*ss.
You’ll have to look that up.
Kind of reminds me of that old saying, “a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.” heh
Could this have been a little reminder that he had better rule correctly on ObamaCare?
I am afraid that you are either wrong, or misinformed, on 2 counts.
First, DC’s government, any all of its authority to pass and enforce laws, comes from the Congress. Congress has delegated its Constitutional authority to some extent and could, at any time, take back some or all of that authority. IOW, what DC’s government does has the approval of Congress.
Second, IL is as bound by the 14th Amendment as any other state. The 2nd applies to it, and all of its county and local subdivisions, by virtue of the 14th. This principle has been ruled upon literally hundreds of times by the Supremes over the years regarding other parts of the BOR; the breakthrough in the Chicago case was that the Supremes finally took the logical step of giving the 2nd the same force in law as the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc. Frankly, it was long overdue.
Maybe Justice Breyer should buy a handgun and an AR15.
We’re up here in the NH semi sticks too, but not in the elite area.
There aren’t any signs on my road, but then, none are necessary.
Go out on a nice Saturday afternoon for some firearms practice and you’ll soon find out that a large number of your neighbors also like to practice with their “toys”.
Tends to keep things quiet around here, which we like.
Breyer should resign and move to Europe where they aren’t saddled with antiquated right wing notions like the 2nd ammendment to the US Constitution.
In the end, all of these liberal scumbags are Carl Rowan. (Carl Rowan - RIP - was the liberal Washington Post columnist who routinely pushed for the kind of “gun control” the District of Columbia had. Then one night he shot a kid he caught swimming in his backyard pool. Rowan died not long after this incident, maybe in part from the shame of his own hypocrisy. If so, then at least he was one liberal who had some shame.)
I don’t live very close to Breyer and Brown but am familiar with that town (Plainfield) from my working days. I’d rather deal with the bears and the coyotes and other 4-legged varmints than the two legged kind any day. We’ve got plenty of the 4-legged kind but the word must be out about my 7.62mm friends in the bedroom closet because we never seem to have any trouble of the human sort in this little neck of woods.
I’m glad that Breyer wasn’t harmed in either instance, but he’s an example of why we need better Surpeme Court justices. Whoever wins the the 2012 Presidential election will probably appoint two to four new justices.
You are incorrect; the 2nd Amendment is written in the passive-voice wherein it is the action that is the subject (and the actor is irrelevant), congress is never mentioned.
Perhaps you are getting confused with the 1st Amendment which starts with "Congress shall make no law".
You may be able to make the argument that the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are to be wholly binding on the federal government only, but that is a different claim than you have made.