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.

Miscellaneous.

Crime victims be damned when the NRA is more important. The gun nuts vow to fight state gun control laws now that the Federalist Society hacks on the USSC have TWISTED the Second Amendment to mean any fucking idiot can have a gun regardless of the type.

But we have "liberals" who think the decision was a great one because they are stupid and have swallowed the NRA's bullshit hook, line, and sinker.

The NRA, by the way, doesn't just represent hunters; it also represents gun makers and ammo manufacturers.

Chicago's Mayor Daley is very worried about this decision, as he should be, and as every police department in the country should be.

Don't hand me the shit the Second Amendment gives the right of anybody to have a gun; this was a totally fabricated ruling by FS hacks.
_____

Somebody

decided to post the Warren Burger article and defy copyright laws or whatever in doing so.

Burger clearly explained what the Second Amendment was all about, and it had nothing to do with the NRA's propaganda.

But it was written before the courts were polluted with Federalist Society hacks.

Miscellaneous News. [Updated]

One of the axises of evil has been broken today, thanks to North Korea submitting for outside inspection a long-delayed declaration of its nuclear program. Old Bush can hang* his head up high or we can all breathe a sigh of relief we didn't go to war with them.
_____

Larry Sinclair gave an interview last night with Jeff Rense over his arrest and the aftermath.

Rense of course should be taken with a huge grain of salt since he is a promoter of various conspiracy theories. However, listening to Sinclair's latest allegations, including the Social Security Administration allegedly cutting off his benefits, makes this worth listening to.

This is the latest. Either he's a flagrant con or else he is being harassed beyond belief.
_____



*--I meant "hold," but "hang" might be a better word.
_____

Don't expect "liberals" to condemn the USSC pandering to the NRA and coming up with a completely fictional "gun rights" ruling, which defies ALL precedent on this issue.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

The Second Amendment relates to MILITIAS, not to individuals, but the high court doesn't give a shit about that. The majority is going to make the rules as it sees fit, to hell with precedent or to what the Constitution actually says.

Edit: Many, many years ago, former USSC Chief Justice Warren Burger, a hunter, wrote an article in Parade magazine titled "The Right to Bear Arms." A quote from the interview that came with the article (the article Burger wrote doesn't have the quote itself) appears in the book Under Fire, which is about gun control and the NRA:

The most outspoken opponent of the way the NRA has interpreted the Second Amendment is, surprisingly, the conservative former Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger. Burger, a lifelong hunter and gun owner, has called the gun lobby's interpretation "one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...[The NRA has] misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see."

(p. 136)

The quote is accurate, by the way. I, like my late mother, who once bought into the NRA bullshit on this issue, read the original article and interview (Parade, January 14, 1990), and right then and there she changed her mind on gun control.

Not only does the NRA have an undue influence on Congress, but now it has an undue influence on the courts.

Before "liberals" start cheering this decision in thinking they are going to get the hunter/rural vote, they need to recognize this ruling is a continuation of decisions whereby the high court makes up its own rulings and defies precedent. The 2000 Bush v. Gore decision was just the first one of what would be many rulings made for political rather than constitutional considerations.

Edit II: Sorry I have had to keep editing this post. I posted it way early in the morning and had to keep going back to make sure I was trying to make sense.
_____