POLITICS - SCOTUS decision ??

[morgan in nm]

Maybe I am just ignorant but isn't a decision on the second amendment supposed to be made fairly soon? I think they are supposed to go on vacation pretty soon and I figured we would have heard by now.

Unless I missed something which is another likelyhood for me.

[CindyLea]

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jun 15, 3:09 PM ET



WASHINGTON - One momentous case down, another equally historic decision to go. The Supreme Court returns to the bench Monday with 17 cases still unresolved, including its first-ever comprehensive look at the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.


The guns case — including Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns — is widely expected to be a victory for supporters of gun rights. Top officials of a national gun control organization said this week that they expect the handgun ban to be struck down, but they are hopeful other gun regulations will survive.

Last week, the court delivered the biggest opinion of the term to date with its ruling, sharply contested by the dissenting justices, that guarantees some constitutional rights to foreign terrorism detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 5-4 decision, which Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for his four more liberal colleagues, was the first case this term that broke along ideological lines.

The conservative-liberal split was seen frequently last term, including in cases that limited abortion rights, reined in voluntary school desegregation plans, made it harder to sue for pay discrimination and prodded the Bush administration to combat global warming by regulating tailpipe emissions. Kennedy was the only justice in the majority in all those cases, siding with conservatives in all but the global-warming dispute.

It's hardly unusual that the cases that take until late spring to resolve are the most contentious and most likely to produce narrow majorities.

The dispute over gun rights poses several important questions. Although the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, the court has never definitively said what it means to have a right to keep and bear arms. The justices also could indicate whether, even with a strong statement in support of gun rights, Washington's handgun ban and other gun control laws can be upheld.

Officials at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said recently that they expect Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban to fall but believe that background checks, limits on large-volume gun sales and prohibitions on certain categories of weapons can survive.

In addition to the guns case, the justices are still weighing whether Exxon Mobil Corp. has to pay a $2.5 billion punitive damages judgment over the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska in 1989 and whether people convicted of raping children may be executed.

Exxon has been fighting an Alaska jury's verdict for 14 years, contending that the $3.5 billion it already has spent following the worst oil spill in U.S. history is enough. The jury initially awarded $5 billion to 33,000 commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, landowners, businesses and local governments, but a federal appeals court cut the verdict in half.

Some justices appeared, based on their comments when the case was argued in February, to favor cutting the judgment further. Justice Samuel Alito is sitting out the case because he owns $100,000 to $250,000 in Exxon stock.

Also awaiting a decision is the case of a man sentenced to death in Louisiana after he was convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter. Only five states — Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas are the others — allow executions for the rape of a child, but only Louisiana has imposed death sentences on people convicted of the crime.

The Supreme Court banned executions for rape in 1977 in a case in which the victim was an adult woman. The last executions for rape or any other crime that did not include a victim's death were in 1964.

Retirements typically are announced at the end of the term, although it would be a huge surprise if anyone decided to retire this year with a presidential election looming and little prospect of a nominee being confirmed before then.

Five justices, though, will be at least 70 by the time the court reconvenes in October. Justice John Paul Stevens is 88, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75, Justice Antonin Scalia is 72, Kennedy will turn 72 in July and Justice Stephen Breyer will celebrate his 70th birthday in August.

[old goat]

...CindyLea
...Thanks for the info!

...old goat

[CindyLea]

I just happened to have it opened in another window. I had just finished reading it. Funny how that worked out. I get to give you guys a bit of information for once! LOLOL

[morgan in nm]

Thanks. I wasn't sure if something happened that I was unaware or what. If its taking them this long, I have a bad feeling that their decision will not look good for us.

[Ysabel Kid]

Pray fellas (and ladies) - we'll need the help I fear!

[Jaguarundi]

Pray fellas (and ladies) - we'll need the help I fear!

+1 and pray!

[gary rice]

Thanks. I wasn't sure if something happened that I was unaware or what. If its taking them this long, I have a bad feeling that their decision will not look good for us.

I know how you feel. almost everyone believes the decision will go in our favor, i hope and pray it does. but, im afraid of the unknown factors out there. i too have a bad feeling but i hope im wrong.

[O.S.O.K.]

As far as I'm concerned, its not "in our favor" unless it's as unequivecal in it's support for the Second Amendment as the Second Amendment is of our right to keep and bear.

Shall not be infringed means just that. Doesn't have any "except for" or "unless" or other dilutions. It's absolute.

[gary rice]

in a perfect world the court would rule with a very strong affirmative that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and in doing so would unsurp a good deal of these insane gun laws including the ones where i live in kalifornia. if so i will be pleasantly surprised but, it is more than likely at best to see an affirmation of the right with a whole lot of but's included, states have the authority to, etc etc etc. worst case is kennedy pisses backwards and remains on the side of the liberals like ginsburg and the rest.

[Charles]

O.S.O.K...... As much as we would like to think otherwise, the Bill of Rights does not grant unconditional permission to act in certain ways, as there is always the over-arching concern for the rights of others. One prerson's "right" may not cause damage to another person who also has rights, including the right to life, liberty etc. etc. etc.

The First Amendment does not grant abolute permission to practice any kind of religiion you want. You are free to believe in human sacrifice, but you are not free to do it.

The right of free speech does not give permission to cry fire in a crowded theater and cause a stampede.

The right to be free from search and siezure does not mean, there can be no search and seizure, it just must be reasonable and have probable cause.

There is no reason to expect the second amendment to grand unrestricted permission to keep and bear arms. Nobody is going to be allowed to carry a loaded belt fed machine gun or an RPG into the mall on Saturday afternoon.

In a society where the rights of all people must be considered, there will be reasonable restrictions on individual right .

I know that a small minorty of folks on the extreme right, get a copy of the Constution and read it like it was "inspired holy writ". Since the day the ink dryed on the document, folks have been aware that it must apply to all folks and there will be conflicts between absolute permission and the common good.

I am fairly certain that SCOTUS will hold the 2nd. Amendment is an individual right and that will be a quantum leap forward for gun right. I am also certain the DC ban will fall as being an unreasonable restriction. The big question is whether or not SCOTUS will give some guidelines for what is or is not acceptable firearms legislation or if we are in for decades of litigation to find that place where the common good impinges on the individual right.

No matter how it comes out, the "holy writ abolutists" are not going to be happy.

[Old Ironsights]

You are making a logical error here Charles:

O.S.O.K...... As much as we would like to think otherwise, the Bill of Rights does not grant unconditional permission to act in certain ways, as there is always the over-arching concern for the rights of others. One prerson's "right" may not cause damage to another person who also has rights, including the right to life, liberty etc. etc. etc.

The First Amendment does not grant abolute permission to practice any kind of religiion you want. You are free to believe in human sacrifice, but you are not free to do it.

The right of free speech does not give permission to cry fire in a crowded theater and cause a stampede.

The right to be free from search and siezure does not mean, there can be no search and seizure, it just must be reasonable and have probable cause.

All this is true. These define ACTIONS taken against another. You know, malum in se.

There is no reason to expect the second amendment to grand unrestricted permission to keep and bear arms. Nobody is going to be allowed to carry a loaded belt fed machine gun or an RPG into the mall on Saturday afternoon.

Here, you are declaring Malum Prohibitum to be equivelent to Malum in Se, which you KNOW to be false. Possession of a thing is not an action taken against another. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean I have injured you. Volenti non fit iniuria. Carrying a Crew served weapon should be, and generally is, restricted by common sense and simple laziness. The fool things are too heavy to lug around. As it is, if I had a Class III Tax Stamp I could LEGALLY carry a fully loaded M60 down mainstreet, Rambo Style, and so long as I never pulled the trigger only have to put up with the harrassment of the local gendarmes because some bedwetter would cry that they got scared.

In a society where the rights of all people must be considered, there will be reasonable restrictions on individual right.

The only resasonable restriction is on the ACTION, not fear of potential action. Thall Shalt Not Commit... or are we willing to adopt Thought Crime as Judicially actionable?

I know that a small minorty of folks on the extreme right, get a copy of the Constution and read it like it was "inspired holy writ". Since the day the ink dryed on the document, folks have been aware that it must apply to all folks and there will be conflicts between absolute permission and the common good.

Ah. The "Living Document" argument that allows the Collectivists/Statists to do whatever they want without going through the Amendment Process... The Constitution, as written is what makes the US different from all the other much more arbitrary forms of "governance" out there.

I am fairly certain that SCOTUS will hold the 2nd. Amendment is an individual right and that will be a quantum leap forward for gun right. I am also certain the DC ban will fall as being an unreasonable restriction. The big question is whether or not SCOTUS will give some guidelines for what is or is not acceptable firearms legislation or if we are in for decades of litigation to find that place where the common good impinges on the individual right.

No matter how it comes out, the "holy writ abolutists" are not going to be happy.

The Constitution has a built in way to change itself. That makes it NOT "absolute". But trying to redefine what is there in plain language as an end run to get what you want when you know it wouldn't pass a ratification challange is absolutely wrong.

[Charles]

Ironsight, et al.. I will not get into another useless point and counter point argument on this issues. Been there, done that and have no interest in doing it again. I was just trying to throw a little reality into this nest of self appointed Constitutional Scholars. You boys have nothing better to do than pick over this subject again and again expounding fringe theory that bears no relationship to the real world of Constitutional Law. Give it up and go shooting!

[gary rice]

i heard today their will probably be a decision by next week. im holding my breath.

[BruceB]

There is no reason to expect the second amendment to grand unrestricted permission to keep and bear arms. Nobody is going to be allowed to carry a loaded belt fed machine gun or an RPG into the mall on Saturday afternoon.

It, however, would be most helpful during the Christmas shopping season!

[Old Ironsights]

There is no reason to expect the second amendment to grand unrestricted permission to keep and bear arms. Nobody is going to be allowed to carry a loaded belt fed machine gun or an RPG into the mall on Saturday afternoon.

It, however, would be most helpful during the Christmas shopping season!

I generally carry a chainsaw during Christmas... at least where at a mall that has a Sears or some such...