Check this out: This guy could be dangerous...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...al-the-second-amendment/ar-BBKKZP0?li=BBnb7Kz
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...al-the-second-amendment/ar-BBKKZP0?li=BBnb7Kz
I agree with his analysis.
He thinks Heller was incorrectly decided. He recognizes that--under current jurisprudence--it would take a constitutional amendment to overturn Heller.
Shouldn't we be applauding such honesty? A SCOTUS justice, publicly conceding that to implement his agenda, we'd need to go through the amendment process?
He thinks Heller was incorrectly decided. He recognizes that--under current jurisprudence--it would take a constitutional amendment to overturn Heller.
Shouldn't we be applauding such honesty? A SCOTUS justice, publicly conceding that to implement his agenda, we'd need to go through the amendment process?
Yes he’s dangerous. He’s a political partisan hack and a Supreme Court justice. He’s damned dangerous.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Retired justice (I can see where my statement would be ambiguous; his words can have the rhetorical impact of somebody on the Court, but he's not taking part in any more rulings...and Scalia mocked him in his last decision as a member, McDonald v. Chicago). He's been off the Court since 2010 (replaced by Elena Kagan); now, he's just exercising his First Amendment rights.
Does anybody really see a repeal amendment making it through the process? Two-thirds of each house of Congress, plus 38 state legislatures?
Not happening. Let him run his mouth; I like the idea of leftists being forced to admit their proposed policies are unconstitutional.
Between him and the two politicians that want you to fill out a form to buy ammo I've been mumbling under my breath all morning.
Last edited:
The misunderstanding of the intent and import of the 2nd Amendment results from a long history of intentional neglect and misinformation provided by Educators influenced by Leftist Academic Ideologues regarding this most essential Civil Right. It seems that the majority of the public is now clueless.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do agree with you on him saying the 2A needs repealed first. I've been saying that to myself a lot lately. Either repeal or change it, then pass your silly little laws. IOW, do it right or GTFO. But we all know it's harder to do it right, it's soooo much easier to just pass unconstitutional laws and let the courts sort them out.
I wouldn't have a problem with him saying the correct method is a constitutional amendment. That's not what he said. He said we SHOULD repeal the 2nd Amendment. Regardless of whether it's possible or not, does he want another Civil War? Because that's how you GET another Civil War!
You speak of process, and yes, process is very important, but it isn't everything. The wisdom of the action being proposed for is also subject to evaluation. Here, Mr Justice John Paul Stevens falls down. Repealing the Second Amendment because it is a relic of the 18th century (I paraphrase Justice Stevens here) does not seem either wise or prudent to me.
So, yes, I do applaud his honesty but condemn his actual thoughts in the strongest terms possible. Any action to undo any of the first ten amendments - the original co-requisites for the Constitution be adopted at all - would be unwise in the extreme.
Oh, don't misunderstand me--I think his mind is shot. In fact, from Wikipedia:
I definitely think he was right on that point, and that his mind has not gotten any better in the intervening eight years. I'd fight tooth-and-nail against actually repealing any of those amendments as unwise...in the sense of "would probably trigger a civil war." But I at least respect that doing so would be the constitutionally-proper way to make certain changes (which changes I also regard as a Bad Idea).
On April 9, 2010, Stevens announced his intention to retire from the Court; he subsequently retired on June 29 of that year. Stevens has said that his decision to retire from the Supreme Court was initially triggered when he stumbled on several sentences when delivering his oral dissent in the 2010 landmark case Citizens United v. FEC. Stevens said "I took that as a warning sign that maybe I've been around longer than I should."
I definitely think he was right on that point, and that his mind has not gotten any better in the intervening eight years. I'd fight tooth-and-nail against actually repealing any of those amendments as unwise...in the sense of "would probably trigger a civil war." But I at least respect that doing so would be the constitutionally-proper way to make certain changes (which changes I also regard as a Bad Idea).
Similar threads
