Really Sorry, but I have to Address This
Of those who read my blog, I know maybe one of you is interested in this subject, but after reading this drivel, I just have to respond.
George Will today provides a platform for an asinine argument of 4th Circuit Justice Wilkinson, who is described as 'conservative'. This is all the more tragic since Will is usually a guy worth reading.
Specifically, Wilkinson is arguing that the Heller case, which finally recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms, is judicial over-reaching equivalent to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.
Oh, allow me to retort. Let's look at some of the logic here:
"In Roe, the court said the 14th Amendment guarantee of "due process" implies a general right of privacy, within which lurks a hitherto unnoticed abortion right that, although "fundamental," the Framers never mentioned. And this right somehow contains the trimester scheme of abortion regulations.
Since 1973, the court has been entangled in the legislative function of adumbrating an abortion code, the details of which are, Wilkinson says, "not even remotely suggested by the text or history of the 14th Amendment." (snip)
Conservatives are correct: The court, having asserted a right on which the Constitution is silent, has been writing rules that are detailed, debatable, inescapably arbitrary and irreducibly political. But now, Wilkinson says, conservatives are delighted that Heller has put the court on a similar path."
There's a huge, conveniently unmentioned difference here. The 35 years of abortion adjudication by the Court were a mess of its own making: Had it done its job in the first place and punted the issue, the decision never would have been rendered, and abortion would have been properly debated in state legislatures around the country. But since the Court decided abortion was a 'good thing' on policy grounds, it acted like a super legislature and short-circuited that debate. And look how well that's turned out...
With Heller, it's just the opposite. Under the Second Amendment, individuals clearly have the right to own guns (NO- it's not ambiguous! It's not that damn hard to figure out! In surveys, grade school children routinely parse out its meaning!). However, in rich irony, the Court has again stepped into a mess, this time because for the last 70 years it's refused to do its job. Had the Supreme Court simply said in Miller "Sorry, people have the right to have guns- don't like it, you have to amend the Constitution", we wouldn't have all of these laws on the books now that the justices will have to parse through. However, since the Court didn't come right out and say that in 1939, now we do have all these laws that will need to be looked at. But that's no reason to simply deny a fundamental right's existance.
Then we have this gem:
"But whereas in baseball a tie goes to the runner, in controversies about the constitutionality of legislation, a tie between serious arguments should, Wilkinson says, tilt judicial judgment to the democratic side -- the legislature.
When rights are unambiguously enumerated, courts should protect them vigorously. But Wilkinson says that when a right's definition is debatable, generous judicial deference should be accorded to legislative judgments..."
Again, sorry, but the Collective Rights model was never a 'serious argument'. It was an absolute farce with no basis in history, and was only ever proposed because the 2nd's clear wording didn't leave room for the kinds of gun laws being challenged. Just because some fool throws up a transparently self-serving argument doesn't mean the right becomes 'debatable'. If I pushed someone off a cliff, my argument that the ground actually caused his death doesn't make my innocence 'debatable' either, but that's the kind of logic we're dealing with here.
But while we're dealing with 'legislative judgements', I might mention that the Congress has repeatedly, in Republican and Democratic years, issued findings that the 2nd protects an Individual Right. Shame Justice Wilkinson doesn't seem to know that.
Well, Shelly's home and ripping me a new one over my attempted fix of the ceiling, so I've got to go. Talk about an utterly thanksless job. Hope you all had a good weekend, and I'll see most of you this week.

This weekend, as you’
(By the way, I haven’t seen these pictures on the big screen yet- I do hope they 






Geez... too bad they were all apparently moving...
In case you can't tell, she's the devil and I'm a monk. Sorry it's so blurry- whaddya want, it's a camera phone!
(How the good Senator won Lucifer's endorsement is beyond me.)
And this group came as the Desperate Housewives...err... wait, no. These are the fine women formerly of UNC Intervarsity!
Annnnnnnnd....... these two:


