Loading ...
Supreme Court Wrapping Up Year
- Filed under: Supreme Court
- Date: Jun 25,2008
UPDATE: DC Gun Ban struck down 5-4. Safe for bitter Americans to cling to their guns……..D.C.’s gun law is unconstitutional (or I should say two provisions of it). Individuals have a constitutional right to possess a basic firearm, protected by the Second Amendment, in your home. That overturns the strict 1976 ban. Secondly, the requirement that any gun (businesses exempt) must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place was found unconstitutional.
No big surprise if you reviewed the questioning from the oral arguments or if you follow the court. This one went as expected, unlike some other surprise rulings of the last 4-5 years.
If any legal experts out there want to help out, feel free.
Other blog opinions: WMD, Pho, Taxman Blog, Nix Guy via AOL.
(end update)
Thursday morning is the final day of the current Supreme Court term. Three cases are outstanding. The big one is DC v. Heller, better known as the DC gun ban case. We covered it back in March and tomorrow we will find out the ruling. All signs point to Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion, so it is highly probable the ban will be struck down. What the ruling will say about the 2nd Amendment and guns in general is less clear; I expect many separate opinions that shows the fracturing of the Justices. A surprise 5-4 ruling to keep the ban would actually probably help energize many Republicans, but all signs point to it going the other way. We shall discuss it tomorrow when the ruling comes out. The other two cases that we will get a ruling on tomorrow: the constitutionality of the so-called "Millionaire’s Amendment" on campaign finance (Davis v. FEC) and and one on federal regulators power to undo wholesale energy sales contracts (Morgan Stanley Capital v. Public Utility District).
Today, the high court ruled 5-4 and outlawed executions of people convicted of raping a child (case Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana, P. Kennedy no relation to Justice Anthony Kennedy). The decision nullified a Louisiana law that provided capital punishment for raping a child under age 12. "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. The four liberals (Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer) agreed with him, and the four conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) did not. 43 year old Patrick Kennedy was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana (details here). He is one of two people in the United States, both from Louisiana, who have been sentenced to death for a rape that was not also accompanied by a killing. The decision left his conviction in place but he must get a new sentence. I would ask if brutally raping an eight year old is more cruel than dying by lethal injection? If the victim does not die and death was not intended, capital punishment for that crime violates the Eighth Amendment, they said today. Robert Bork must just sigh every time something like this happens.
Andy McCarthy: But let's give him (Justice Kennedy) that one for argument's sake. The Eighth Amendment talks about punishment that is cruel. First, punishment does not become cruel just because it's disproportionate. And second, are we really striving here for proportionality? If a crime is cruel — as it clearly was in this case — wouldn't a proportionate punishment also have to be cruel, and thus in violation of the Eighth Amendment……Wouldn't it be refreshingly honest if activist justices just bluntly us: "We don't like the death penalty and we can stop it because there are five of us." Sure, it would be tyrannical, but at least it would be accurate, and not nearly as nauseating as what passes for reasoning in these cases.
Justice Alito: Kennedy is against the death penalty no matter "how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be."
No retirements are expected tomorrow with the election this November. Though I would certainly welcome a surprise announcement.
17 Responses for "Supreme Court Wrapping Up Year"
Rare agreement with you on this. The Exxon ruling today was important too.
Fireworks tom.
Tomorrow should be interesting.
I am going to get a screen shot of you saying you agree with me.
The Exxon ruling big in the sense the majority was Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, and Souter (wrote the majority), with Alito sitting it out because he owns Exxon stock, though you assume Alito would have voted the same. Thats how it was supposed to be when they were all appointed. Didnt quite work out that way.
Souter was supposed to offer a major swing from the voters of William Brennan. Not so. Kennedy has been about as moderate as Powell who he replaced, which wouldnt have been the case of the first two choices - Bork or D. Ginsberg.
Two missed opportunites. About a half a seat pickup with Alito over O'Connor…..Roberts even with Rehnquist.
These things matter.
I thought I heard a report that John McClown in a meeting with Hillary supporters reminded them he voted for Ginsberg and then has some good things to say about that vote. And I am to believe his comments about who he would appoint? He knows he can say just about anything as long as he convinces many of us he will not nominate liberal judges to the court we will at the end of the day vote for him. Why should I believe him?
gun ban going down
Angry Con,
I also was initially concerned about those reports. However, I think it has been misreported/overplayed. I believe he brought it up to show he has been even handed in application of the advise and consent power of the senate. The Dems have frequently applied an idealogical test for nominees whereas the Republicans have applied a qualifications test. A smart move for McCain would be to emphasize Dem treatment of judicial nominees with a direct comparison to how the Republicans treated Clinton's nominees. While we may not like the Gang of 14 BS, he may be able to use that to show he is a uniter able to reach across party lines to get things done while Obama has no inclination or capacity to work with Republicans.
Lets' review….the Supremes are against severely punishing child rapers…..they are for powerful Exxon….and now, you know, the strict constructionist, Scalia bypasses the clearly stated Bill of Rights, pulling out of his derriere, "the historical narrative" justification. My goodness.
"The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted."
Oh no, that's not an activist judge statement.
If the Bill of Rights doesn't speak directly to individual gun ownership outside of militia participation…..which it doesn't….then it would seem to me it would be a matter left up to the states. Scalia, naturally, doesn't believe much in states rights.
People in DC need to protect themselves feom child rapists
DC is not a state
This isnt the Constitution I once knew
I'm pretty sure that whole "right to bear arms" thing needs to be revised, considering it took, like, at least a minute to fire a single bullet when it was initially written.
4 justices were for a ban???
There was a lot of speculation before the case was heard that the Supremes could dodge the case because DC isnt a state, but that never came to be, obviously.
To DHM
How is it you want to revise this amendment? I assume you want more limitations?
Ben: That's why the case was chosen by Roberts in the first place. Roberts, I believe, knows what agenda he wants to push. The Indiana voter ID case, and Roberts' timing in hearing and ruling on it, had the same conservative agenda feel to it as this gun case.
One other musing I have about this stuff….
Washington D.C. has no representation in the U.S. government. I have a suspicion that Roberts selected this case BECAUSE it has no state's rights implications. Could be wrong.
Reverend-
An interesting interpretation of the selection of the gun case originating from DC. Hadn't thought of that.
More than just Roberts has to agree to take the case. A majority has to want to hear it, not just one justice.
anne -
Yes. Ideally I'd like a complete ban, but I don't see that happening.
Leave a comment