Thoughts on the Supreme Court Yesterday
Just because there’s so much information about it and stuff to think of, so just a bunch of random thoughts about it.
1) How sad that a principle (referring to Heller specifically) that really isn’t that difficult to grasp, and is only hampered by a 18th century language quirk, can only be retained by a 5-4 ruling. This isn’t to say that every issue should be 9-0, but something like this realistically should have been, and probably more of them.
2) I’m ultimately glad to see FEC v. Davis ruled the way it was - while the Court ultimately punted poorly on some of the campaign finance provisions early, I feel like that ruling leaves a really good opening for eventual real reform involving an actual protection of our speech. Soon…
3) If I have one issue with Heller, it’s, ironically enough, Scalia’s dissent. I’ve mostly skimmed it and read the highlights elsewhere, but it’s not the Scalia Unleashed! I was hoping for. My money would be on his being restrained in order to protect what was probably a clearly frail majority to begin with. Which, again, is sad - compromising on what are supposed to be inalienable rights? Sigh. But considering the recent(?) habit of concurring opinions neutering otherwise sound rulings, I suppose we should take what we can get.
4) On a similar tack, a lot of hand-wringing appears to be happening regarding the narrow scope of the ruling. I again choose to credit that to the possible political realities, but I also wonder if it was a scope issue. Yeah, I’d love for the Court to wake up and say that one’s inalienable rights don’t disappear once you’ve served time for your crime, for example, but I also can’t be sure that it ever would have happened with this case. So yeah.
5) This can’t go without saying, and this has to be addressed: Obama is on record as stating that Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg are “models” for his type of justice, as “sensible.” Not surprisingly, these three were on the wrong side - the anti-Constitution side - of the two most obvious Constitutional rulings of the day yesterday. These are his models. This is what he thinks is “sensible.” Breyer penned a dissent in Heller, specifically, and that should trouble anyone who cares about the Constitution one lick. I’m not saying Thomas and Scalia are perfect - far from it, in fact - however, in terms of basic caring about the Constitution and the rights enshrined therein, there’s no one on the Court who appears to care more. And Obama wants their opposites. That’s a problem, period.
Some highlights from my Google Reader about the cases:
* From the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr on Heller’s limitations and Ilya Somin thinking in the context of Kelo, and Eugene Volokh offering his thoughts.
* Radley Balko is somewhat skeptical about Heller’s outcome.
* Jacob Sullum questions Scalia’s limits.
* RedState offers a general “quotes of the day” list regarding Davis
* Trevor Bothwell calls Heller a win/lose ruling.
* Ed Whelan at NRO highlights Stevens’s dissent (which was an embarassment) and Alito’s opinion, both regarding Davis.
