2nd Amendment Applies to the States

Breaking news: Chicago's handgun ban has been struck down, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states.

Kagan for SCOTUS

I don't know what to think of the current Supreme Court pick, Elena Kagan.  On one hand, she's described as a good defender of the first amendment.  On the other hand, her support of the Executive Branch and police powers is troubling.  And on the interesting side, there are rumors she might be gay.

This could be an interesting confirmation, considering that the democrats cannot overcome a republican filibuster.

The Supreme Court acted justly in Citizens v. FEC

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is somewhat of a landmark decision.  The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to restrict campaign spending by corporations.  It seems that many on the left are very angry about this, saying that corporations will run the country.  But I'm sure that unions are just as happy about this, and we all know how they vote.

The bigger picture is that this is a victory for the freedom of speech, and freedom of speech includes paying for that speech.  The government has absolutely no right to tell anyone (or any corporation) how they can donate money to political campaigns.  When speech is restricted in anyway, it brings us down an Orwellian path, in which the government has a bigger role in deciding the type of information that can be disseminated.

In this case, it was about an anti Hillary Clinton movie being banned, but next time it could easily be an anti-GOP movie.  The bottom line is that people deserve to be heard.

Interesting ruling from the courts

Apparently you cannot be sued for accessing internal company data with the intent to start your own business. Seems very strange, and given that we have 2 appeals courts who conflict with each other I bet SCOTUS will take a look.

Sotomayor Confirmed

We now officially have Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first latina on the bench. From what I've read of her record, I completely approve of this, and look forward to seeing her take on the upcoming decisions.

Sotomayor a shoe in

In my one-thousandth post, I will report that Sonia Sotomayor is without a doubt going to be joining the Supreme Court. There is nearly zero republican opposition to this nominee, outside of the rightmost fringes of that party.

Over the next few days, we'll see some more confirmation hearings, but the GOP leaders in the Senate are not putting up a fight, meaning that we'll soon have Justice Sotomayor.

The good justice?

Over at Reason, it seems that libertarians will have a lot to like about Justice Sotomayor.

Its her name, not yours bubba

The new "controversy" as only a republican could call it, is over the pronunciation of future Justice Sotomayor's name. Whether to use the Spanish pronunciation or an Anglo, is not up to us. It is up to whoever possesses that name.

As a grandchild of immigrants, to many on the right-wing, I have an "un-American" name. I'm sure they think the same thing of Jews, Asians, Indians, and no doubt, the French. When will they accept that America is a country full of different names, different faces, and different colors? Probably once they realize that their party, the GOP, is built upon a racially charged farce of the 50's.

Sotomayor a Solid Pick

Sonia Sotomayor is a solid pick for a Supreme Court justice. Despite what the loons on the right wing will tell you, she's a very moderate pick.

First appointed to the bench by George H W Bush, it is hard to call her a "left wing radical." She has decades of experience; she's highly qualified.

No matter what republicans do, she'll get on SCOTUS, so they might as well just let it go through. This is not a battle that is worth fighting for them. With their talk against her being a woman or hispanic, they are not going to win any favors with those groups.

DC Mayor Says Semi-Autos are Illegal

To show the lack of understanding in the DC government, one must only go to their website, in which the mayor has released a statement that semi-automatic handguns will still "generally" be banned in the city.

For those who are not familiar with guns, many do not know what semi-automatic means.  It means one pull of the trigger is required for each shot.  These types of handguns used to actually be called "automatic" but once smaller machine guns came out the "semi" was added.  

Just about any handgun made in the last 100 years is a semi-auto, including revolvers and those fed with a magazine.

District of Columbia v. Heller

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As promised, here is my best analysis after having read the Supreme Court decision.  I did not quite read it in its entirety, but I've read enough to know what this means: our gun rights are not in jeopardy no matter what happens over the next several years.

What the decision means now:

DC must begin issuing handgun permits ASAP and cannot require guns of any type to be stored locked and disassembled.  DC will likely become as permissive about guns as Illinois (excluding Chicago), requiring the person who buys a handgun to have a permit, submit to fingerprinting, and register their gun.  So law abiding citizens in DC will now be able to buy a gun and carry it loaded while in their homes.

What is no longer allowed?

Outright bans of "common" guns such as handguns, rifles, shotguns and the requirement that they be unloaded when stored in the home.

So what is still OK?

This will likely be hashed out over the next decade, but it appears now that gun registration, bans of specific guns (like machine guns), and many other federal laws will remain untouched.  Crazy people will still not be able to buy guns, and neither will felons, at least legally.

What did SCOTUS say of the 2nd Amendment in general?

They said it means we have the individual right to own guns.  This right does not require us to be in a militia.  They did say that the first clause and second clause of the amendment are related, in that giving us the right to own guns individually would allow us to form a militia should the government get out of control.  The American Revolution was not well organized, but we still won.  Scalia also remarked that the 2nd Amendment could be modified to read "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What does "bear arms" mean?

This is another question that remains unresolved.  Scalia's opinion indicates that he likely would have opted to allow carrying of a gun.  The opinion does, however, explicitly say that concealed carry can be regulated/prohibited.  They court was silent on open carry, so that may very well be OK, but we will need a test case.  Will someone please volunteer to walk around DC with a shotgun strapped to your back?

What laws are likely to be challenged?

Many of them.  I'm sure prohibitions on concealed carry will be challenged even though I don't think these will necessarily be overturned.  I think there is a decent chance that assault weapon bans in states like California could be in danger.  Chicago's gun ban will likely be overturned quickly, as it was very similar to DCs.  

Who won?

Freedom.

Who lost?

DC Mayor Fenti, who was so adamant in sending this case to the Supreme Court despite the mayors of other cities warning him that it would foil all of their efforts.  His stock just dropped.

Death Penalty Narrowed to Murder

Today by a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty can only apply in cases of murder, invalidating a Louisiana statute that handed down the ultimate punishment to those who rape children.  

I've always had mixed feelings on the death penalty.  While there are many cases, including the rape of a child, in which a community's outrage may be best served by killing the perpetrator, the main reason proponents back it is that it helps prevent crime.  Most studies conclude that the death penalty does little or nothing to deter crime.

Furthermore, the appeals process for death penalties is lengthy, and it usually costs more to execute someone than to feed them for life in prison due to lawyer fees.  So more of your taxpayer money is wasted to kill someone.  There is also the question of whether the State has the right to end a life; a question that many libertarians will answer with a resounding "no."  

Ron Paul is very much opposed to the death penalty, Bob Barr supports it.

I think that within 20-30 years, there will be no death penalty in America.  All other democratic, developed countries have abolished it except for the US and Japan.  Time will tell, but rulings such as this mean that old sparky's days are numbered.

Habeas Corpus Remains

Today in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rule that the "enemy combatants" in Guantanemo deserve to be tried in a real court, not a kangaroo court in Cuba.  

Habeas Corpus is an ancient doctrine that basically says a person must be brought to a real court, presented with real charges, and a decision must be made as to whether the person should remain in custody.

Abraham Lincoln suspended the write of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War to hold Confederates in the Union without bringing them to trial.

It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.  If these are truly bad people we have in Guantanemo (and I'm not convinced that all of them are bad, since many of them were given to us by other dictators they pissed off), then there should be no issues with bringing them to trial.  A country should not be afraid to take people to a real courtroom, not a military tribunal, if it really believes that the said persons committed crimes.  

This ruling is an important victory for Liberty, since the government was on a slippery slope of being able to detain anyone, including American citizens, and keeping them locked up forever without a trial.

I have long been against holding these people without a trial.  If it is proven that they killed Americans, we should execute them.  But every person deserves the right to a fair trial, and this is what we were denying.

Sorry Bush, sorry McBush, oops I mean McCain.  You aren't above the law anymore.