> Bill wrote: > I wouldn't say i'm in love with the supreme court. They have made a number > of decisions i'm not really digging since becoming a tad more conservative > with bushes two appointees. But since the world is not just painted in black > and white this was one decision i could agree with. >
I think this one is hard not to agree with. Basically the Supreme Court said that the 2nd provides for a federal right to a gun used in protecting your home; I think most people would agree with that. What they didn't say was whether the 2nd overrides local laws or really rule on any other issue which means that they really didn't do too much; with a 5-4 decision, the issue is FAR from over nor far from clear. Call me pessimistic, but it sure seems like the concept that legal theory is going to save us from politics is dead (i.e., no "activism"). In this case you have 2 Justices looking at the same case through the same lens and coming to wildly different conclusions. Why, for example, does Scalia think one ambiguous right like guns is crystal clear but another ambiguous right like habeas corpus (due process) is not? So I guess what Scalia is saying is the Constitution allows for the government do abduct you from your home, but if the abductors are not federal employees then you can shoot at them. Perfectly sensible :-/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:263188 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
