Good Sign?
By Mitch Berg
For a non-lawyer, trying to figure out what the SCOTUS justices are really saying when they talk is a little like the Oracle of Delphi trying to predict the next day’s action at Canterbury. Lots of figurative sheep entrails and the like.
But in yesterday’s hearing for S McDonald V. Chicago, this bit here sounded modestly encouraging to this mere layman:
In oral arguments Tuesday, the justices signaled they are ready to pivot off a 2008 case, which overturned the handgun ban in the federal enclave of Washington and extend the right to “keep and bear arms” to states and localities.
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered the swing vote on the nine-member court, observed that the right to possess a gun has a “fundamental character” akin to freedom of speech. A decision in the case is expected this summer.
Aside: After years of being the flip vote on issue after issue after issue, I wonder if Anthony Kennedy has double the ego of all the other justices?
March 3rd, 2010 at 8:55 am
Kennedy’ only been the “swing vote” since O’connor retired. (It also helps to remember that the Court hears many more cases during a term than the relative few that end up 5-4).
IIRC, in O’connor’s final term, she joined the opinion of the Court in every single case she heard.
March 3rd, 2010 at 10:43 am
There are two critical issues: does the Second Amendment apply to the states and if so, what is the standard for reviewing state actions that infringe on it?
I think we’ll win the first easily.
I fear the liberals on the court won’t be content to set the standard for second amendment violations as high as it should, leaving wiggle room for state and local governments to nibble away at our freedoms.
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Nate, haven’t the state and local govts. done more than nibble? I’d say Illinois and Chicago have already taken a big bite. This case is the people saying we want those rights back, even if they’ve been chewed.
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:46 pm
I think the court decision will go for 2A. However I think they’ll let stand the element from Heller regarding “reasonable regulation”, but without further defining reasonable. There’s likely going to be plenty of other battles over what’s reasonable. Heller was a walk, McDonald is a jog, then we go on to run.
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:18 pm
This case is merely the sequel in what’s destined to be a trilogy.