« Robbery with a gun... a stapler gun | Main | Brady Campaign getting a bit antisemitic? »
Parker/Heller roundup
I can't recall a case getting this much coverage at the cert. stage. Or at the merits briefing state, either. Usually a Supreme Court case is ignored until the Court rules (and often even after that: in a Term the Court takes about 80 cases, but upwards of 70 are not very sexy). But...
Here's today's Wall St. Journal editorial.
Michigan Atty General Mike Cox weights in with textual argument.
Here's a pretty good general article on the case.
And here's the Brady Campaign press release, calling the Circuit ruling "judicial activism at its worst." Further proof that, in many cases, "judicial activism" amounts to "striking down a law I wanted upheld."
The Harvard Law Bulletin reports that Prof. Mark Tushnet thinks DC may win, while Prof. Larry Tribe thinks the plaintiffs will. It quotes Prof. Tribe, who came over to the individual rights view: “My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Tribe said in a recent New York Times interview. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”"
And we shouldn't neglect academia. Here's Nelson Lund's latest, refuting the argument that since the amendment relates to the militia, and handguns are supposedly not militia weapons, they can be banned.
The case not only has its own webpage and blog, it has its own Wikipedia entry, which people are keeping up to date.
Comments
"judicial activism" amounts to "striking down a law I wanted upheld."
Very true. How many liberals today would denouce Brown v. Board of Education as judicial activism? And yet that case was stands as the most striking example of the Court acting on their own despite the will of Congress or the American people.
The media continues to perpetuate revisionist history on the judicial perspective of the Second Amendment. By lying and asserting that the Court has "always" viewed the Second Amendment as a collective right--and that the shift towards an individual right is purely a product of John Ashcroft's assertions--they are able to argue (lie) that they (Brady camp) are promoting the status quo and we (Pro-RKBA) are moving for some radical change.
It always seems to come back to the media.
Posted by: Jeff at November 24, 2007 11:59 AM
Libs don't mind judicial activism when the plaintiffs are named Griswald or Casey, or are pretending to be named Roe.
Posted by: Jim at November 24, 2007 02:08 PM
Jeff:
I'll disagree with you on Brown. I think the court overreached in its decision, but the finding that "separate but equal" was anything but was Constitutionally correct. The Fourteenth Amendment means something. Just because prior courts "constitutionalized their personal preferences" does not mean that a sitting Court must do the same. "The will of Congress and the American people" is not what the Court is charged to follow. The Constitution of the United States is.
Thus it is with the right to arms. For exactly the same reasons that brought Brown before the court - racism - the right to "keep and carry arms wherever (we) go" (Dred Scott v. Sanford) and "bear arms for a lawful purpose" (U.S. v Cruikshank) was stripped first from blacks, and later from ALL of us.
It's time for the Supreme Court to restore a stolen right.
That's not judicial activism. It's their damned JOB
Posted by: Kevin Baker at November 25, 2007 09:11 AM