POLLIWOG (Tadpole): the early stage of an animal that will eventually become a frog, hoping to be kissed by a princess, turning into a prince! POLIBLOG (Political Blog): the early stage of a center-right political blog that may eventually become a full blown blog of the center-right. Join in if you find any merit in the comments. If you are on the left and disagree, feel free to straighten me out! Who knows, with effort from all of us this blog may turn into a prince!

Location: San Diego, California, United States

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Silliness on the left of SCOTUS

Monday the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled in MacDonald v City of Chicago that the Second Amendment (the right of the people to own and possess arms) applies to cities and states as well as the Federal Government - the latter decided in "Heller" in 2008. Dissenting opinions were written and/or joined by the four leftist Justices: Stevens (his last), Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

Jacob Sullum at Reason.com summarizes the silliness and shallowness (my belief) of their dissent. A sample of their logic and why it is silly:

"In their dissenting opinions, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) worry that overturning gun control laws undermines democracy. If "the people" want to ban handguns, they say, "the people" should be allowed to implement that desire through their elected representatives."

What if the people want to ban books that offend them, establish an official church, or authorize police to conduct warrantless searches at will? Those options are also foreclosed by constitutional provisions that apply to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. The crucial difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional democracy like ours is that sometimes the majority does not decide."

It is well worth the 5 minutes to read the article and understand the importance of keeping SCOTUS in the center.



Post a Comment

<< Home