Thursday, February 18, 2016

Why Heller Is the New Roe v. Wade

Justice Scalia’s decision on gun rights will be the one that conservatives care about most.
Sen. Ted Cruz is obnoxious. Sen. Marco Rubio is nice. That’s why so many Republican politicians, donors, and party leaders want the senator from Florida, not the senator from Texas, to be the Republican nominee for president. They think Rubio would attract more voters than Cruz in a general election, and polls suggest they’re right. But the polls and pols miss an important factor: Tactically, Cruz is smarter than Rubio. That difference is becoming clearer as the candidates grapple with the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. . .
It’s possible that Rubio will end up as the Republican nominee. But if he does, it will be on the strength of his charm, not his acumen. To win the general election, Rubio would need to think more like Cruz, choosing issues that fit the moment and serve his candidacy. When it comes to the Supreme Court, that issue isn’t marriage. It’s guns.


Anonymous said...

Trump Vows to Defund Planned Parenthood, Overturn Roe

Trump also said that Roe v. Wade “was wrongly decided” and that he would appoint “constitutionalist judges.”

Anonymous said...

I submit to all 3%ers this,
McDonald, specifically Justice Thomas absolute obliteration of the contrived con that is "due process incorporation" is FAR more valuable and meaningful than Heller.
Justice Thomas exposed the whole concocted structure built trying to skirt admitting that, ummm, welll ahhhhh, yeah, that whole "the Constitution only applies to the federal government" precedent was bovine excrement from the get go and the 14th itself was an attempt to put the creative lawyering to bed once and for all.

Do not be fooled into focusing on Heller, which is properly owed its due, because saying one has a right, even going so far as to explain it and debunk the talking points against it, is ONE thing BUT the APPLICATION of it, it being HELD as ENFORCEABLE is quite another.

A right does you no good if you cannot apply it, enforce it, exercise it.
See what I am saying?

I like to put it this way, and do frequently -
Heller is the straight left jab, stiff jab, to the jaw, that pushed the head back a bit, but McDonald (Again, especially Thomas' Takedown itself) is the booming right hook that together knock out almost all modern day gun control.

Itis a shame the NRA didn't just STFU and witness a full PandI incorporation to come to pass to force the inevitable implosion of incorporation doctrine itself - and commerce clause "slaughtering" as a part of it, but the NRA action there at least proves where that organization TRULY stands, err bows. Well, for those who understand what is really going on anyway........

Chiu ChunLing said...

I'm not leaving it to the Supreme Court to say whether or not the Second Amendment means what it says. That's not their decision. It never was, under the Constitution.

I'm an armed member of the populace. And I'll kill anyone that tries to disarm me.

I don't need the Supreme Court's permission for that.

NavyJack said...

Heller vs DC has already been targeted. The 4th circuit appeals decision on the Maryland AWB will be the case used to "undo" the "in common use" provision in the Heller ruling. The lower court will accept the "strict scrutiny" guidance forced by the 4th circuit appeals panel only as it applies to the BOR (2nd/14th Amendments). The lower court will challenge "strict scrutiny" as it applies to Heller. This case will then go to the full 4th circuit appeals court and then onto the US Supreme Court AFTER the POTUS gets his new judge. McDonald FULLY relies on Heller. Once Heller is gone, McDonald follows.

Anonymous said...

Only idiots are concerned with any gov't official's opinion on a right. It's irrelevant. Yet there are many many idiots.

Anonymous said...

McDonald can't rely on heller, McDonald applies Heller. Fair enough, if Heller is gone there would be nothing to apply, but that is beyond ridiculous.

SCOTUS agreed - The Second amendment is no different. The stage is already stuck - that ain't changing...the question though is WHICH WAY does it stick? Are bible carry permits or does the right prohibit permits? Poops that's already addressed too...

The enumeration of a right TAKES OUT OF THE HANDS OF GOVERNMENT,Even the third branch, the power to decide on a case by case basis whether a right is really worth insisting upon.

You see, there is no way to undo what has been done. Not with Heller at least not for quite a few generations.

Put that with the failed attempt to create a new level of scrutiny in lower courts and it's done. This is why we witnessed both the grabbing of in common use and talk of outright repeal of the second. They are finally realizing Heller and McDonald actually hold.

There is no escape but it is a shame we missed out on a full and honest p and I...but it may yet come. We shall see. Regardless, prepare for the answer...I fear it will be bible carry permits. Maybe THEN people will finally STAND UP and FIGHT BACK!