Wild Opinion Speculation
SCOTUS BLOG:
There is very little information that can be gleaned with confidence about the authorship of the remaining opinions from the Term.
It does look exceptionally likely that Justice Scalia is writing the principal opinion for the Court in Heller – the D.C. guns case. That is the only opinion remaining from the sitting and he is the only member of the Court not to have written a majority opinion from the sitting. There is no indication that he lost a majority from March. His only dissent from the sitting is for two Justices in Indiana v. Edwards. So, that’s a good sign for advocates of a strong individual rights conception of the Second Amendment and a bad sign for D.C.
Backing up to February, there are two remaining cases (both argued, like the guns case, by Walter Dellinger): Morgan-Stanley (an energy regulation case) and Exxon (the maritime punitive damages case). Six Justices haven’t written from the sitting, making predictions very dicey. The best guess is that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Stevens are writing. Justices Scalia, Souter, and Kennedy are unlikely because they had already written twice in a sitting before February. Justice Ginsburg wrote twice in later sittings.
For April, there are four opinions remaining: Plains Commerce (involving Indian tribes), Kennedy (death penalty for child rape), Davis v. FEC (campaign finance), and Giles (a Confrontation Clause case). Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito have not written and therefore almost certainly have three of the opinions. The most likely author for the remaining decision is Justice Souter (who needs another opinion to take him to seven for the Term).
With the exception of Heller, these predictions have no genuine value. They are just informed guesses and none says anything about the outcome of the cases.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
On this the Constitution may be hinged.
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm__________________________
Bingo
IMHO the phrase “the people” in the 2nd Amendment has got to mean the individual, if the SC says otherwise they’d be setting a precedent to challenge and interpret the rest of the Constitution.
Wherever it says “the people” it would only mean the collective population and never the individual.
Think about it…Roe v. Wade is supposedly a right of privacy…for an individual.
If DC gun law’s upheld, R v.W, is seriously threatened.
That’s why I think 2 or more Libs. on the SC will join the “Brains of the Outfit” and strike down the DC gun ban.
I know I’m a little crazy, but am I wrong?
Comments anyone?
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 pmOne has to only understand English to discern that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means that I as an American cannot be kept from ownership and use of firearms, swords, bayonets, axes, pitchforks or what have you to defend myself, my family or others.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm_____________________________
Yes, your right on the money.
Your comment remind me of what Rush said a while back about the 2nd., that “the right…shall not be infringed” means we already HAD the right and the Government can’t it take away because they never gave it to us!
And “…to keep…” means the Government can’t disarm the public nor deny us firearms…the Government can’t deny us our own self-defense against anyone including the Government.
I’m paraphrasing but I think I’m pretty close.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:48 pmWhat always amazes me about this stuff is that the court claims to take notice of Original Intent, but then ignores the best evidence of what that intent was. And that is what the Framers actually DID, or did not due.
After the Constitution was ratified, Congress did NOT pass laws requiring that all firearms in private hands be turned in to armories. And, what was a Miniteman? Why, a Minuteman was a citizen who owned a military capable weapon, and KEPT it at HOME, so that on a minute’s notice he could pick it up, and join with the militia marching down the road to kick some British ass.
All of this quibbling over the meaning of the Second is nothing but sophistry. What the Framers of The Constitution MEANT, is what they DID.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:05 amRight on brother! They set the example.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:33 amI guess not everyone in this country knows their history…