Judges say Scali's gun rights decision is judicial activism

[ericire12]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080927/ap_on_go_su_co/scalia_conservative_critics

But two recent critiques of his opinion in the landmark decision guaranteeing people the right keep guns at home for self-defense are notable because they come from respected fellow conservative federal judges.

The judges, J. Harvie Wilkinson of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., and Richard Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, take Scalia to task for engaging in the same sort of judicial activism he regularly disdains.

Wilkinson said elected officials are in a better position to determine gun laws than the courts. He compared the gun case to Roe v. Wade, the abortion rights decision that conservatives consider among the court's worst.

"Heller encourages Americans to do what conservative jurists warned for years they should not do: bypass the ballot and seek to press their political agenda in the courts."

"Yet, sixteen years later, the court now takes an issue about which the nation is deeply divided and narrows democratic outlets, overlooks regional differences, and imposes a rigid national rule,"

Posner, writing in The New Republic last month, said of Scalia's work in Heller: "The decision ... is evidence that the Supreme Court, in deciding constitutional cases, exercises a freewheeling discretion strongly flavored with ideology."

He called on the justices to practice "judicial modesty" and resist the temptation to put a glaze of history on decisions that reflect their personal values and policy preferences. "It would go some distance toward depoliticizing the Supreme Court," said Posner, a prolific writer who frequently comments on key issues.

Scalia has said on many occasions that ideology does not enter into his decisions. Instead, he is a proponent of determining what the words of the Constitution meant when they were written, a concept called originalism.

Just this past week, speaking at the University of Montana, Scalia repeated his claim that the court is divided between justices who believe in originalism and those such as Justice Stephen Breyer, who believe that judges sometimes must be guided by more than the language of laws, if the words are ambiguous or embody a value that must be applied to specific circumstances.

"It's not a conservative-liberal fight on the court," Scalia said. "It really isn't. It has to do with what your view of the Constitution is."

[Fatman]

I fail to see what language in the 2nd is vague.  Maybe the 4 against votes need an English refresher.

[tombogan03884]

More socialist crap to confuse the ignorant masses.

[TAB]

I fail to see what language in the 2nd is vague.  Maybe the 4 against votes need an English refresher.

whats an "arms"   "whats a milita"   

Only legal terms please.

[Dakotaranger]

Well, liberaty is an idealology.  So I guess that half-wit judge was sort of right about Justice Scalia.  It's just a shame that there are justices in this country that have never read the constitution, the Federalist Papers or so infected with a totataliatarn mind set.

[Sponsor]

[Mr.45]

More socialist crap to confuse the ignorant masses.

The media at it's best.

[DDMac]

Okay, Judge Wilkinson. The people should use the ballot box instead of the courts to establish rules to live by, right? Well then, what is a member of The People to do when the long established, and politically entrenched party in power, legislatively acts against the will of the people?

Does Judge Wilkinson believe that, if left to a popular vote by the citizens of the District of Columbia, they would vote themselves into helpless disarmament? The residents of DC elect those in power over them to continue of the social support system they have become desperately dependent upon. That does not mean, however, that their Constitutional rights are subject to suspension because elected officials believe that, sometimes, "the people just don't know what's good for them".

Justice Scalia in his opinion did not depart from the Constitution, he simply reminded the elected officials of DC that they may not as well. That is not activism. It is reaffirmation of equal justice under the law.

Mac.

[ericire12]

Okay, Judge Wilkinson. The people should use the ballot box instead of the courts to establish rules to live by, right? Well then, what is a member of The People to do when the long established, and politically entrenched party in power, legislatively acts against the will of the people?

Does Judge Wilkinson believe that, if left to a popular vote by the citizens of the District of Columbia, they would vote themselves into helpless disarmament? The residents of DC elect those in power over them to continue of the social support system they have become desperately dependent upon. That does not mean, however, that their Constitutional rights are subject to suspension because elected officials believe that, sometimes, "the people just don't know what's good for them".

Justice Scalia in his opinion did not depart from the Constitution, he simply reminded the elected officials of DC that they may not as well. That is not activism. It is reaffirmation of equal justice under the law.

Mac.

Comment of the day award!

[DDMac]

Thank you, sir. I usually wake up sober in the morning, read the news, and it goes downhill from there.
Mac.

[jaybet]

Agreed, DDMack, very well put.