Something Feral

Digging up the flower-beds.

Monday, June 28, 2010

A Win*

Thoughts on McDonald v. Chicago [.pdf]:

- Everyone in the majority (except Thomas) circumvented the Privileges and Immunities clause (and avoided addressing the Slaughterhouse cases) in favor of the Due Process clause. To me, this still reads as "(X) is an right, unless we perform a necessary and sufficient amount of legal acrobatics and tortured reasoning (emanating all over your penumbra), after which it is perfectly acceptable to remove it again. Cue fanfare."

- Sotomayor joins the dissenting side instead of recusing herself from the case for involvement in Maloney v. Cuomo:
Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. On appeal, the panel affirmed.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

- Even though this breaks the logjam of cases regarding the Second Amendment (Peña v. Cid, Sykes v. McGinness), expect more waffling and resistance from every beneath every rock and from every cesspool a la Daley.

* Hat-tip to Barry Bonds.


Anonymous said...

the pattern of the left is to continue to enforce clearly illegal laws. They expect that most people will not have access to the Supreme Court. Word will get around that exercising your rights will still get you locked up.

Eventually a case will get tot eh Supreme court that will get decided the way the left likes it, then it will become immutable "settled law".

Elusive Wapiti said...

I agree with Hale. The left and some on the right will continue to pursue and enforce clearly illegal laws, such as restrictions against firearms ownership and child support.

But it is good to see that the Establishment Right is calling the Establishment Left on their two-faced hypocrisy on SCOTUS decisions...had this gone the other way, the Left would have been deluging us all with claims that this is now settled law versus an issue still to be litigated.

We on the right must settle for the knowledge that the Left will not stop in their effort to do what they want, the Law notwithstanding.

Something Feral said...

I agree with you, gentlemen, that "settled law" is nothing of the sort; nothing outside of tort is "settled".

The point I was attempting to allude to was the manufacturing of legalities that conflict with standing law and run roughshod over Constitutionally-recognized (and presumably protected) rights outpaces the rate at which they can be challenged, let alone overturned. They know this, and the plebs are still figuring it out.

To wit: unloaded open-carry is about to become extinct in the PRK. The very idea is offensive to both the Assembly and the police unions, and it might (ironically) open the case for turning the PRK into a "shall-issue" state for CCW permits, but the Reign of Terror continues unabated until such a time that the nature of the politicians change (cue canned laughter) or we collapse under our own debt and corruption (impending).

SCOTUS could seize the bull by the horns by being less vague in its own rulings, but to do so would diminish the mystery of their superpowers. Or something. More likely, they have a vested interest in not doing so, whatever it may be.

Hang the lawyers, says I.

MikeT said...

the pattern of the left is to continue to enforce clearly illegal laws.

And yet, the police wonder why a lot of white middle class hates them now...