Scalia Tips His Hat That Supreme Court Will Further Crack Down on Gun Control

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare
 (Credit: Reuters/Yuri Gripas)

(Credit: Reuters/Yuri Gripas)

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via my pal Mark Karlin:

In a little noted speech reported in the conservative Washington Examiner, the leading Supreme Court judge who regularly legislates from the bench, Antonin Scalia, signaled that he is ready to further rule in favor of more guns in more hands, with even fewer restrictions than now.

[...]

USA Today reported that Scalia teased Totenberg before an audience at the Smithsonian Associates:

Asked if the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is as unequivocal as the First Amendment's right to free speech, Scalia said, "We're going to find out, aren't we?" -- an indication he expects the court to hear a gun rights case in the near future.

"There are doubtless limits (on gun rights), but what they are, we will see," Scalia said.

But as with his remarks this week contemptuously dismissing Congress's repeated renewal of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) – and his claim that the VRA is nothing more than "racial entitlement" – Scalia is once again signaling his role as the radical right wing SCOTUS enforcer.  Scalia is a cross-breed between the Federalist Society and the Tea Party – sort of a brown shirt with a Harvard legal degree -- in this case on assault weapons and big guns, Scalia apparently regards anything that can shoot a bullet as Constitutional, only drawing the line at rocket launchers that can bring down aircraft. How extreme is that?  It makes the NRA look like moderates.

The immoral limits of Scalia's ideological fervor appear to have few limits.  More than once, BuzzFlash at Truthout wrote commentaries on Scalia's astounding assertion: "Scalia Ruled That the Constitution Doesn't Prohibit Executing an Innocent Man in Troy Davis Case." As we observed in one of our columns:

Because it was during an appeal to the Supreme Court in 2009 on behalf of Davis that Scalia - and BuzzFlash is not making this up - actually wrote a dissenting opinion that there was nothing in the Constitution that prevented a state from executing an innocent man (or woman). [...]

If the Constitution doesn't protect us from being executed even if we are innocent, then, Houston, we have a fundamental problem of human rights in America.

[...]

Scalia is a dangerous man. He should be in a loony bin for self-styled intellectuals who scorn all brains but their own ("I think, therefore it is the law" is his motto), where he would not be such an ongoing threat to the nation.

Please read the entire post here.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare
  • http://www.facebook.com/rewinn Randall E. Winn

    In Bush v. Gore, Scalia wrote an oft-ignored opinion defending the suspension of vote-counting (this was an opinion on the "stay", not the final opinion of the case.) In that opinion, Scalia simply rewrote the centuries-old law of the stay to get the result that Bush wants. Stays are supposed to consider the potential harm done to both sides and to third parties, but Scalia considered only the potential harm to Bush, not to Gore and not to the public. In addition, stays are not supposed to change the essential facts of the case, but this stay delay vote counting and that very delay caused there to be ... in the opinion of the majority in the ultimate decision ... not enough time to count the votes - thus the Bush v. Gore stay violated the "change no facts" elements of a stay. Finally, a stay is an extraordinary remedy which is not to be used if there is a less onerous alternative; in this case, the less onerous alternative would be to let the counting proceed but just not announce the results until the main case was decided. All this law Scalia overturned. He is one of the worst men ever to sit on that bench.