“[T]he five most liberal justices voided the conviction of a Pennsylvania gun owner who was charged with a federal crime for buying a handgun after he had served prison time in Japan for gun crimes there. The three conservative judges dissented.
"Federal law makes it illegal for Americans to own firearms once they have been convicted 'in any court' for a serious gun crime. Bush administration lawyers strongly defended the law and said it covered convictions in foreign courts.”--The Los Angeles Times
In other words, our "pro-gun" president and the "strict constructionists" on the High Court think it's consistent with the vision of The Founders to strip a human being of unalienable rights because they were caught bringing Bibles to China.
It’s curious that justices who have previously endorsed considering international law in domestic decisions, notably Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor, sided with the majority, which correctly observed “[Fo]reign convictions may include convictions for conduct that domestic laws would permit" and acknowledged the potential for "convictions from a legal system that are inconsistent with American understanding of fairness."
It was the “conservatives,” particularly Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, who insisted that the term “any court” means just that.
Hell, Clarence and Tony, you neocon frauds, the Taliban held court all the time.
In the arcane world of the black robes, citations and incantations trump the reason We the People ceded limited authority to them in the first place, mainly to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." No actions by any branch of government may legitimately result in any other end.
To me, the key words in The Times' piece are: "Bush administration lawyers strongly defended the law..."
This isn't the first case where the Bush Justice Department has argued that foreign convictions should stand.
Gun owners put Bush in office. NRA reportedly spent $20 Million convincing them to "vote freedom first." Now this guy wants to change Senate rules to smooth the way for more "conservative" judges so that next time this issue comes up, they'll have the votes to uphold Sharia convictions?
No thanks. This latest outrage has convinced me to defer to Larry Pratt's judgment.
REFERENCES:
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1: “It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person…is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”
The Majority Opinion
The Dissenting Opinion
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Look, one of the things we've LIKED about Thomas, and Scalia to a lesser extent, is the fact that to them "the law is the law". The Constitution, and the written laws of the U.S., mean what they say they mean, regardless of what the readers' own opinion about the issue might be. If you don't like it, then change the law.
Are we to ask Thomas and Scalia to find according to what they think is "right" rather than what the law says? That's exactly the kind of "legislating from the bench" that we like to hammer the liberals for.
From what I see, the only wiggle room is precisely the meaning of "...any court". In other circumstances, are we to grant immigration and/or asylum status to foreigners regardless of the fact that they've been convicted in foreign courts of murder, terrorism, arson, kidnapping, etc.? Would we consider these charges to be moot simply because they were brought outside the U.S. court system?
Post a Comment