Well.. On one hand, I was also surprised by how close the gun vote was. If you read the text (summary) of their decision, it is pretty clear that they are just reaffirming the amendment as it was written. Any person capable of impartial analysis would have to agree that DC ban was unconstitutional. They also clearly indicated that they would not object to licencing of each and every gun and owner: a pretty severe restriction, perhaps sufficient, in my view. Why four justices were against that decision, is not clear to me yet (other than a somewhat dubious connection between gun ownership and rise in firearm-related crime rates, which has nothing to do with Constitution).
On the other hand, the author is just paranoid in his "too close for comfort" argument (5-4). The only justices that may be retiring because of age are liberal ones, so a threat to Democratic cause is so, so much greater than for Republican one. He is out of touch with reality on how that, and a couple other recent decisions, brought home to DEMOCRATS the need for keeping SC balance.
I still haven't read anywhere a thorough analysis on how different an outcome of that vote could have been if it were not a DC but a state law. That's what really matters, I think.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
On the other hand, the author is just paranoid in his "too close for comfort" argument (5-4). The only justices that may be retiring because of age are liberal ones, so a threat to Democratic cause is so, so much greater than for Republican one. He is out of touch with reality on how that, and a couple other recent decisions, brought home to DEMOCRATS the need for keeping SC balance.
no subject
He is interesting, and I try to follow him. He was out of blogging for a couple of years and came back recently.
no subject
no subject