Yesterday:
US Supreme Court rejects death penalty for child rapistsScalia joined the 4-member dissent. I'm ambivalent about the death penalty... but, if it's allowed for anything, it ought be allowed for child rape. The majority opinion cited "disproportionality" of crime to punishment. Okay - I'll agree the death penalty is not proportionate to, say, stealing a loaf of bread. But child rape? Yes, I agree with Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas in their dissent.
Today:
High court affirms gun rights in historic decisionIn this case, Scalia wrote the majority 5-4 decision. The 2nd Amendment is devilishly ambiguous - I believe deliberately so, as a compromise between Madison & Hamilton. Me? I take at face value the phrase, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The alternative, from my perspective, is to parse all other Amendments in the Bill of Rights so as to dangerously weaken the core protections W has largely ignored. In support of the other Rights, I defend the Right to keep and bear arms. Note: I do not own a gun and am not a member of the NRA. If it weren't for the 2nd Amendment I'd be in favor of amazingly strict gun-control legislation... I just can't see my way clear to restricting "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" while vigorously advocating for 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment protections.
Me & Scalia: yeah, let's have a beer together!
1 comment:
Isn't the division on gun ownership a little off? The conservatives are the ones we need to own a gun against. They are the ones turning this country into a totalitarian state, yet the liberals that just might need something to protect them are the ones who want gun control.
I wonder if they needed sword control in Verona during the 13th century? Would that have averted the problems with the Montagues and Capulets?
Post a Comment