McDonald v City of Chicago

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Trader7793, Jun 24, 2010.

  1. Hopefully today will be the day that the US Supreme Court issues a ruling in the McDonald v City of Chicago case. Hopefully the court will rule that state and local governments have to recognize the 2nd Amendment just like the federal government.
     
  2. Maybe monday.
     
  3. Since when is selling happy meals a Constitutional issue?

    :D
     
  4. cstfx

    cstfx

    5-4 against the ban, remanded back to lower court

    dissenting: STEVENS, BREYER, GINSBURG, and SOTOMAYOR.

    The Opinion
     
  5. This is an interesting issue, not so much because of the actual issue of gun rights but because it demonstrates what can happen when the Supreme Court starts down the slippery slope of making up law. The Court in the 1950's began a process, much applauded by progessives and liberals, of "incorporating" the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment, even though nothing in the Constitution or 14th Amendment's history gave the slightest justification for it. The effect was to give federal courts vast new power over state actions.

    One of the few Amendments never to be so "incorporated" was the Second, concerning the right to keep and bear arms. Hence this case. The position of gun banners was ludicrous. They wanted to Court to make an arbitrary decision that of all the Amendments, for some reason the Second was exempt from being applied to the states.

    Actually, their problem was not the idea of whether or not the Second applied to the States. I think there is a very good argument that it was not originally intended to apply. The problem was there is no principled way to carve out the Second from other parts of the Bill of Rights that were never intended to apply to the states as well.

    Now we will get decades of litigation over whether or not draconian gun regulations adopted by cities like Chicago are "reasonable". Just the sort of thing the courts are not suited to handle and which should be handled by the local political process. Of course,you can say that with equal force about issues like prayer in the schools or at school activities, Christmas scenes on courthouse steps, Ten Commandment plaques on courthouse walls, how state legislatures are districted and how elections are set up, etc etc.

    Expect the usual liberal bellyaching complaining incredibly about judicial activism. As with the Bush/Gore election, unacceptable judicial activision can be defined as the courts reaching a decision liberals don't like.
     
  6. 5-4 for gun rights, good job
     
  7. =====================
    That was a good job.

    City of Chicago & some media didnt like it.
    I like the way the Supreme Court ruled on that one,NOW, before a November to remember.:cool:

    I do agreee with something else conservatives & Judeo-Christians do;
    as they say in City of Chicago, vote early,
    & vote often.:D
     
  8. 377OHMS

    377OHMS

    Daley is a corrupt liberal hack and the City of Chicago sucks.

    The city pumps sewage into Lake Michigan about 1-mile from where they draw in municipal water. I never could get used to that idea.

    Half the people in that town think waffles is a legitimate dinner option. Waffle houses and city workers dot the landscape. The other half of the residents think a hot dog is haute cuisine.

    New York is better. Even DC is way better in every regard.
     
  9. What's outrageous is the vote was not 9-0.
     
  10. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Apparently we have some judges either unfamiliar with the second amendment or they're too biased by their liberalism to vote appropriately. Kinda like what I expect from that butt ugly flaming liberal being confirmed by congress now.
     
    #10     Jun 28, 2010