Supreme Court: Scalia and Stevens Duke It Out

It was an extraordinary 23-minute-long scene at the Supreme Court this morning as Justice Antonin Scalia read from his majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller and then Justice John Paul Stevens read from his unusually pointed dissent. Both cast aspersions on each other's interpretation of the Second Amendment and relevant precedents, and spectators were left with a lot of reading to do to determine what the justices actually decided. The Court had clearly declared an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment; Scalia said it could be limited, even rattling off the kinds of regulations that might be acceptable. But Stevens, in dissent, seemed to say that the majority's ruling was broader than Scalia was making it out to be.

"Do not accept the summary you have just heard," Stevens said at one point. Earlier, Scalia told spectators they had to slog through 154 pages of opinions to really understand the Court's position. And Scalia said it was "particularly wrongheaded" for dissenters to rely on United States v. Miller, the 1939 case that marked the last time the high court ruled on the Second Amendment.

When Scalia was reading his own opinion Stevens occasionally shook his head in disbelief. And Stevens jousted back. With emphasis on the word "genuine," Stevens said that "a genuine judicial conservative" would not have inserted the Court into the "political thicket" of the gun rights debate as Scalia had done.

Through it all, the rest of the Court seemed either calm or exhausted on this, the final session of the Court's term before it adjourned for the summer. Wakefulness escaped Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly throughout the Scalia-Stevens confrontation, and Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter seemed to be struggling to stay awake at times as well. In fact Stevens, age 88, seemed to be the only dissenter with any spark or vigor. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. smiled broadly as he opened the session, and Justce Clarence Thomas, who often seems bored or disengaged on the bench, seemed unusually animated. At the end of the session Roberts offered the standard thanks for the "superb work" of the Court staff and the "professionalism" of the Supreme Court bar.

And then everyone scrambled to read the hefty opinion. On the Court's ground floor Alan Gura, the lawyer who took on the D.C. gun ordinance and won, was smiling as he waited for a copy of the ruling. "It sounds good — what we were hoping for," said Gura. But before going further, Gura said he wanted to read the whole decision. More on the decision later at LegalTimes.com.

Comments

[Robert Mack]

Yes I think a case can be made that the founders were citing the citizen farmers and the right of those citizen farmers to quarter and draw those weapons when called.
However, if they thought this to be an exclusive granting to the state they would have stated the reverse, or who is not allowed to quarter arms, but they did not. They were aware of the necessity of the people to hold and bear arms for hunting and self protection. Furthemore no reasonable person could ever argue that they envisioned a 'sunshine provision' whereas the right of all people to bear arms would cease in 2008 due to a modern government statute.

Unfortunately this area was not written as clear and precise as the rest of the Constitution However in many writings of that era a comma inserted assumed the place of the word "and" thus in this case granting the peoples right to bear arms absent of govenment. Additionally, I think it highly unlikely that the founders would have wanted the government to exclusively stake hold those weapons for several reasons: First of all the framers were almost entirely united in not trusting the government....any government. Time and time they mentioned or wrote of govermental distrust and negating govenment power wherein allowing the govenment to have the implied and expressed power which came with the exclusive use of these weapons stands in direct contrast to most of their recorded views and thoughts.

[Andrew]

It just seems to me that more left-leaning people (Justice Stevens paramount among them) accuse conservatives of doing exactly what THEY THEMSELVES do. Stevens has inserted politics(e.g. abortion rights which are not mentioned in the Constitution) into his decisions for 40+ years now. They simply do not like it when they are on the losing end of a decision like this.

[jim]

Another reminder -- it is the Court that is in charge, not legislatures. Both "liberal" and "conservative" judges agree on that. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

[Michel Labelle]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (No. 07–290) – DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.DICK ANTHONY HELLER [June 26,
2008]

The nine judges missed the point!

The Second Amendment is = A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment is NOT = The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, right off the bat, 5 judges (the majority) are wrong : Arms are restricted to people which are part of Militia ONLY.

Now, what is Militia?
1-part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
2-a body of citizens organized for military service
3-the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

This is where the problems kick in.
To make a long story short (there is a 157 pages judment by the Supreme Court), Militia in 1783 meant a kind of army which was NOT permanent. Militia had to be on call all the time. The Framers were afraid of the tyranny of a permanent army and were making sure that no law makers whatsoever will disarm the Militia for the sake of becoming a dictator. Now, it is tricky. How could you make sure of a free Militia without allowing its members to be free of any boss? So, the price to pay to have a free armed Militia is to let any citizens (men between 18 end 45 years old and not disable)to be armed, even there is no organized Militia at that time.They had to be ready all the time. They called them the Minutemen. Furthermore, it was a duty for those men to carry a gun, otherwise they have to pay someone else to do it.

So, unfortunately, the Framers have made their choice.In fact, they did'nt have any choice.They had to preserve freedom and there was nothing else to do.

The Supreme Court was right, but for the wrong reasons.

[James]

The Communist Have Lost!!!
You Can Leave Now!!!

Without the 2nd Amendment We Would not Have The 1st Amendment.

Thank You God & The Supreme Court

[Kevin Gay]

Let's not forget "shall not be infringed"
–verb (used with object) 1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb (used without object) 2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.