Is the WSWS

ever correct about the USSC's utterly ludicrous "Second Amendment" ruling of the other day. While idiots in the blogosphere and punditocracy hailed the "landmark" (read pulled out of the majority of the USSC's ass) decision as reasserting something that never existed in the Second Amendment, this piece really says it all.

Moreover, the Federalist Society hacks of the high court certainly don't seem to care about the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The majority, especially Scalia, fabricated history in order to push their extreme political agenda:

Conscious political considerations, not legal or constitutional principles, underlie the opinion written by Justice Scalia. As in all of his major decisions, Scalia starts with the desired political outcome and then works backward, constructing a legal and historical justification without regard to either precedent or logical consistency. He then piles up invective against his liberal critics on the court when they point to the barefaced apologetics in his legal arguments.

According to Scalia, the Second Amendment provides for an individual right “to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” The Amendment, he writes, “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

As Justice John Paul Stevens points out in a dissenting opinion, some states at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights did have in their declaration of rights express guarantees of a right to bear arms for self-defense and hunting, but this language was not incorporated into the Second Amendment, which makes no mention of such concerns.

The Federalist Society hacks on the high court literally reversed DECADES of precedent and LIED about the intent of the Second Amendment, preferring as they did the fraudulent arguments put forth by the likes of the NRA.

As the article notes, this was a cynical decision serving the political purpose of dividing people who live in rural areas where hunting is popular (and their rifles are in no danger of being outlawed, NRA bullshit to the contrary) and those who live in urban areas where crime is a big concern. This decision could have a chilling effect on law enforcement efforts in big cities to crack down on crimes involving handguns.

This isn't the first fraudulent decision by the high court, and it won't be the last with that kind of majority bloc on the court.


In related news, Jesse Jackson is one of the few to criticize the abominable USSC decision and worries about challenges to Chicago's gun laws.