How does those Bill of Rights work anyway?
Saw this over at Twitchy..
It does appear the Justices had adversarial points on both sides, but Alito’s brutal take down of the state lawyer was comedic gold. It was quite clear that Mr. Rogan, the attorney for the State, was a liberal, effectively giving a pass to all political speech raised by the liberals, but not speech raised by conservatives. If this were a video game, Justice Alito probably got bonus points for the multiple traps Rogan set off in a row.
The interesting part of this is just how this case got to Supreme Court anyway. This was all because a voter wore a “Don’t Tread on Me” shirt at the polls, which was considered “political speech” by the “reasonable” poll worker under the law, even though that shirt had nothing to do with any political issue before the voters. Hate speech anyone? Dave Alexander over at the Artisan Craft blog has a rather poignant meme about the dangers of ignoring history.
And while the Supreme Court has been making rulings that seem to strengthen some of the amendments listed as the Bill of Rights, they have been less interested in quantifying the scope of the people’s rights of the Second Amendment.
In Thomas’s view, the court’s disinterest has emboldened lower courts to treat the protections of the Second Amendment as second class. He is surely correct. The interesting question is why the Supreme Court has been unable to muster the four votes needed to review one of the many lower court rulings. There are two possible explanations. The first is that, as Thomas suggested, some of the justices regard the protections of the Second Amendment as less important to our constitutional democracy than other individual rights protections. The second is that neither of the justices most likely to agree to review one of the lower court decisions — Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Anthony Kennedy, both in the Heller majority — currently has an interest in further developing the court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence.
President Trump’s contemptible suggestion that due process take a back seat to prevent a person with mental illness from getting a gun should give everyone pause. While it’s entirely possible that Trump used the statement as an impetus to get support to do “something” as a bold PR effort, it was very clear the President was ignoring the real truth: The current laws and regulations could have stopped the Parkland shooter. It was human error at worst, but innocent American’s with no involvement are being blamed simply because they believe in the protections of the Constitution.
Sadly, this effort to do something will never address the shortcomings of a bureaucracy that has many points of failure. And even if the system were perfect, you can never predict when someone decides they want to take an innocent life. In this regard, when it comes to guns, a mass murderer and the failure of the government faces less scrutiny as the left drives the narrative to their real goal.
One thing is for certain: There is a concerted effort on the left to restrict, if not entirely remove, the protections afforded individuals in the Bill of Rights for the sake of social justice, which is, in itself, is a fallacy being perpetuated by the left. The real intent is to transform America into “Amerika”, the Social Utopia where everyone is equal, full of love, and can be whatever they want to be on a universal wage and universal health care.
Sounds like a horrible way to live.