SCOTUS tells Chicago to shove it.

[MrFun]

I mean that a big purpose of drunk driving laws is to punish people when they drive drunk anyway. It's my impression that the punitive aspect is much lower with gun control laws, at least the controversial ones.

KH:

Then there's that.

okay, fair enough


But now let's talk about Republicans favoring judicial activism.

[Solomwi]

Agreed, especially when Thomas drew a non-activist path to the same result.

Thomas

[Darius871]

Agreed, especially when Thomas drew a non-activist path to the same result.

Thomas

Thomas
Slaughterhouse
Slaughterhouse's necessitating an eventual bastardization of the Due Process Clause to achieve the same goals anyway


(In all honesty though, I'm not convinced that the McDonald majority was necessarily "activist" either; the fact is that the DPC incorporation test it applied has been around for almost a century and didn't have to be massaged at all to reach this result. I may be of the mind that Palko itself was an activist travesty and its progeny was therefore tainted, but that's neither here nor there in 2010 as even Scalia had to admit.)

[Solomwi]

Yeah, this particular court (or any in the future) didn't engage in activism in following a long-established doctrine, even though the doctrine itself is highly activist. I have trouble getting worked up over that particular brand, though, since the pretty textual P&I route leads inexorably to the same place on incorporation. It's more a frustrated bemusement that the court insists on taking the DP route when P&I is just sitting there, batting its eyelashes, looking gorgeous, and just begging to be used.

[KrazyHorse]

Lawyers are weird.

[Darius871]

I have trouble getting worked up over that particular brand, though, since the pretty textual P&I route leads inexorably to the same place on incorporation. It's more a frustrated bemusement that the court insists on taking the DP route when P&I is just sitting there, batting its eyelashes, looking gorgeous, and just begging to be used.

[Darius871]

Lawyers are weird.

And physicists and investment bankers aren't? What's your frame of reference?

[KrazyHorse]

That we don't engage in doublethink on a regular basis.

[Fake Boris]

You are not considering the deterrent effect of civilians being armed. You're less likely to rob someone knowing they are also armed.

Evidence points towards making it more likely to be shot first, questions asked later.

[Darius871]

That we don't engage in doublethink on a regular basis.

If "we" refers to both groups, then

Anyway I wouldn't mind knowing which particular instance of doublethink occurred here. Of course we indulge in it whenever there's a client it would benefit, or whenever trolling Asher, but not in the rare occasion that we make a point personally to stand behind (which I think only happened once or twice on this thread).

[flash9286]

Original intent seems to me to be the OPPOSITE of activism.

Except this is no clear original intent. Nobody knows what the framers were thinking in regards to the 2nd amendment. There is evidence to support both non-individual and an individual right. Moreover, to be technical it is the intent of the ratifying conventions not the framers that actually matters, and there is even less evidence regarding what they thought the 2nd amendment meant. Most constitutional law isn't "law" at all, it is just political decisions. My own viewpoint is if the constitutional is ambiguous then let the elected legislature handle it.

Yeah, this particular court (or any in the future) didn't engage in activism in following a long-established doctrine, even though the doctrine itself is highly activist. I have trouble getting worked up over that particular brand, though, since the pretty textual P&I route leads inexorably to the same place on incorporation. It's more a frustrated bemusement that the court insists on taking the DP route when P&I is just sitting there, batting its eyelashes, looking gorgeous, and just begging to be used.

I should have been more specific. I don't think this decision by its self is activist, as it naturally follows Heller. Heller , however, was activist, IMO.

[DinoDoc]

In what fashion?

[Solomwi]

I should have been more specific. I don't think this decision by its self is activist, as it naturally follows Heller. Heller , however, was activist, IMO.

No harm done, since that was in reply to Darius' post.

[flash9286]

In what fashion?

There are tons of scholarly articles and books about the history of the 2nd amendment, do a google search. Even (honest) conservative judges admit the 2nd amendment is ambiguous at best (e.g. Posner, Wilkinson).

[David Floyd]

Except this is no clear original intent. Nobody knows what the framers were thinking in regards to the 2nd amendment. There is evidence to support both non-individual and an individual right.

Eh? Cite me any evidence at all that indicates "the framers" considered the 2nd Amendment to be anything BUT an individual right. Not saying it doesn't exist, but as you're the one making the claim you should provide the evidence.