The District of Columbia government on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to address only a single issue, if it agrees to hear the city’s appeal seeking to reinstate its flat ban on private possession of handguns. In a reply brief, found here, city officials contended that the only issue the Court need decide is the meaning of the Second Amendment as it applies directly to the city’s specific ban on pistols. This would involve an inquiry aimed at what the Amendment’s words mean, “construed in light of their history, purpose, and place in this Nation’s tradition.”
Amazing, the shameless contortions. I'll leave it to the legal pundits to analyze this latest tactical ploy--what strikes me is more basic: I'm sure we've all noticed how honest people posing honest arguments don't need to stoop to arcane and obscure twists and maneuvers to make their case. The DC government brought this fight upon themselves, and now they want to tie their opponent's hands.
If the District were an individual, what do you think that would say about his character?
[Via Paul Nelson]
1 comment:
My real concern here is what maneuvers and twists will the decision have to give the appearance of judicial consideration while effectively changing nothing or very little.
The high court in recent decades does not have a good record when it comes to ruling against state power in favor of citizen rights.
Even though they often get bones of contention settled properly between competing state interests, they seldom rule against state interest in favor of the citizenry, no matter the maneuvers and twists they must undertake. Kelo v. New London is a perfect example.
I do not expect any more of an honest ruling than we got in Kelo. That is providing they grant cert, which they may not do. If they do not, they save themselves a lot of work in maneuver and twist to see that they do not make a ruling that applies outside DC. Thereby not angering nor alienating the powers that be in places like Chicago,NYC, L.A., Boston, et.al. all of which wield considerable political power.
Make no mistake, the court has always been a political animal. It still is. So I do not place a lot of trust in the idea that they might do the right thing and decide this according to the constitution. You know the old "penumbras" thing.
I do hope I am wrong, but I would never bet that way.
Post a Comment