Wilkinson said elected officials are in a better position to determine gun laws than the courts.Yeah, leave it up to Carolyn McCarthy and Alcee Hastings to pick and choose from the rights menu! And in other areas, elected officials can roll back proscriptions on slavery, bring back official state religion, etc., etc.
Here's living proof that republican presidents don't necessarily make good judicial picks. If you don't mind, Wilkie-boy, I'll defer to a superior jurist on this, William Rawle, who wrote:
No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.But duck out on the last means of peaceable redress if you will, judge. Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that plan?
Cloistered elitist moron.
[Via Mack H]
6 comments:
Wilkinson is something of a local saint. Much respected in the Land of Project Exile.
Like his spiritual brothers L. Douglas "One gun a month" Wilder and Tim "Million Moms" Kaine, he sees the constitutional glass half empty. Gotta balance individual rights against the good of society.
Is not society composed of individuals? Are not gun laws prejudice, prior restraint, discrimination, all the things these legal eagles claim to oppose?
Marxist collectivist elitists.
We may have a serious disagreement one day.
Like the saying goes, all that is necessary to be thought mad today is to go around repeating the sentiments of the Founders.
Give me liberty -- or I'll get up and get it myself.
"Give me liberty -- or I'll get up and get it myself."
I LOVE that!!!
Obviously dear Harvie is the recipient of an unearned letters of law degree. He must be good on his knees.
Logic precludes any reading of the Constitution other than originalism. It means what it meant at the time of ratification. Otherwise, if you can apply any meaning at any future date, why have a written Constitution at all? You are just making it up as you go, anyway.
Liberals are about the most bizarre people on the planet. Have you noticed that when the abortion and gay rights issues were defeated by the people or the legislature, they went to the courts to get their way? But now that the Supreme Court has sided with the Constitution, why, courts are lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut, and worse than useless. Suddenly, it's the legislature who is omniscient and all-wise. If a decision goes against them, they won't accept it. They'll find someone who will decide for them. What bunch of tantrum-throwing crybabies!
you can only assert that by acknowledging that collectivism is a valid means of interpreting the behavior of all liberals. certainly by their own account, collectivists can be shown internally inconsistent for having a purposeful group and then violating its precepts -- but the response will be exactly what you have just described. the kommissar vanishes. orwell foresaw this.
so, perhaps some go to the courts, others do not, because they have different ideas of liberalism itself. not important.
people who want to fashion society to their own liking don't care whatsoever about the means of doing so. that behavior in and of itself is neither liberal nor conservative, despite any strong correlation.
there is something deeper that is wrong with them.
Post a Comment