...Miller was never convicted -- commentators noted this was pretty suggestive the court hadn't bothered to read Miller before citing it.And this level of judicial incompetence doesn't rise (sink?) to the level of malpractice? Assuming it wasn't "willful"?
...I guess he didn't read the Perpich case, either, let alone verify the dates and who did what.
We have to let these demonstrably ignorant and corrupt vultures rule over our lives, and there's no recourse?
I know no politician would stick his neck out or be able to get anything done, but would somebody please educate a simple non-lawyer: Is there any kind of bar you could file a complaint with and seek some sort of discipline/reprimand? How does that work--or doesn't it?
[Via Avg Joe]
Bet it doesn't work that you can file a complaint against an incarnated deity, but it should be shouted to the heavens, spread far and wide, not to mention some of the other obvious errors. Its not just malpractice, its criminal negligence. I would guess intentional, why would they let history or facts get in the way? David, your blog and column are a good start.
ReplyDeleteStevens said that the majority of Justices would have us believe the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights decided to limit elected officials' options to deprive The People of "every terrible implement of the soldier" which they, the Framers, had just finished writing about being their birthright.
ReplyDeleteYes, Pope John Paul, because its the truth, only more so. The Founders would have a looooong talk with the other five, and with an assembled Congress and the president too.
ALL the justices obviously hope we're all research-challenged and can't remember back past last night's TV bubble gun for the mind.
I've never been able to find even an email where the Supreme Court can be reached. They don't suffer constructive criticism gladly.
Excuse me, bubble GUM for the mind.
ReplyDelete"The other five," are, of course, the majority supposedly "pro-2A" justices of the Nine Writers in Black. A Lord of the Rings reference.
What are the chances the mainstream media will identify and point out those errors?
ReplyDeleteI know, I know, I asked a stupid question.
I'm not a lawyer either, but the House can impeach them and the Senate can try them. They can be removed from office. It has been done to federal judges and though I won't swear to it, I believe one SC Justice.
ReplyDeleteAlthough my Representative claims there is no mechanism for such when I approached him about impeachment for Jimm Larry Hendren. I sent them the proof that it could and had been done.
They don't talk to me now.Sort of "If you can't get away with lying, try ignoring." kind of approach.
But hey, nobody wants to upset the economic development club of elected and appointed officials. Anyone who does is apt to suffer exclusion from the gravy train ride.
In case you are wondering which U.S. Representative had his staff call me and lie he is Mike Ross, D-Ar. 4th District.
The other 432 Viet-Congressmen are going to give constitutionalists Ron Paul and Randy Forbes a bad name...
ReplyDeleteAs much as I would have liked Scalia to have recognized that "shall not be infringed" means just that, should we not stop and consider that had he written anything less ambiguous than what we were given yesterday that maybe Kennedy would have gone the other way? Can you imagine what terrible shape we would really be in if we had flat-out lost?
ReplyDeleteNo. Now that we have decided that it is an individual right we can move on to the meaning of infringement, etc. No longer will we have to hear that "collective/only for the state militia national guard" nonsense. That was a huge argument that the antis had in their arsenal - and it's no longer valid (not that it ever was valid).
This was a HUGE victory, especially considering the alternative - a 5-4 AGAINST us.
Yeah, I thought about that, posted it somewhere too.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that there are things like this in there:
Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
Yet, we have all kinds of crap that's left to stand. Besides not knowing the past, you would have to assume that Kennedy either knew what he was signing onto or didn't bother to read it.
It's either one or the other, shall NOT be infringed or it can...pick one!
Was it just a punt down the road to some distant (70 year) future date when that is argued now that we've (barely) established (again) an individual right? Was it a weasel wording attempt to have it both ways?
The world may never know.