Well, the US Constitution scored a major victory today in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Case. If you don’t know what happened maybe it would be best if you moved on and watched The Hills . The full opinion can be found here. Legal scholars will be opining about this case for years to come so it wouldn't be prudent to do any legal analysis here. However, I do find Justice Scalia quite humorous so I put together a list of the Top 8 Justice Scalia Quotes from the DC v. Heller decision.
1. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
This one sentence just prevented a revolution while also keeping the Obama Campaign relevant.
2. Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque.
OMG OMG, did he just call Stevens Grotesque? Oh no he didn’t. I can just imagine them sitting around the back rooms of the SCOTUS drinking scotch and smoking cigars calling each other 'grotesque'. 'Grotesque' is my new favorite slur.
3. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.
Thanks for the shout out to the Chicago-land area. Go Cubs! This is our year!
4. Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that.
Seriously Stevens, did you not even read Miller? WTF? Seriously???
5. The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.
Justice Scalia is using Alice in Wonderland to tear apart your argument. Damn, this guy is good. What’s next, a Chewbacca defense
6. JUSTICE STEVENS relies on the drafting history of the Second Amendment—the various proposals in the state conventions and the debates in Congress. It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely understood to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.
Not only are you Grotesque, but you are also dubious. Justice Stevens, go take a shower.
7. We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach.
Interest-balancing sounds like a great phrase to use to promote fascism or communism or both.
8. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
Wait… I don’t get it...you are just interpreting the Constitution? But what if a law totally sucks?
1. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
This one sentence just prevented a revolution while also keeping the Obama Campaign relevant.
2. Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque.
OMG OMG, did he just call Stevens Grotesque? Oh no he didn’t. I can just imagine them sitting around the back rooms of the SCOTUS drinking scotch and smoking cigars calling each other 'grotesque'. 'Grotesque' is my new favorite slur.
3. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.
Thanks for the shout out to the Chicago-land area. Go Cubs! This is our year!
4. Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that.
Seriously Stevens, did you not even read Miller? WTF? Seriously???
5. The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.
Justice Scalia is using Alice in Wonderland to tear apart your argument. Damn, this guy is good. What’s next, a Chewbacca defense
6. JUSTICE STEVENS relies on the drafting history of the Second Amendment—the various proposals in the state conventions and the debates in Congress. It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely understood to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.
Not only are you Grotesque, but you are also dubious. Justice Stevens, go take a shower.
7. We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach.
Interest-balancing sounds like a great phrase to use to promote fascism or communism or both.
8. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
Wait… I don’t get it...you are just interpreting the Constitution? But what if a law totally sucks?
Anything Scalia writes is a must-read.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite Scalia quote:
ReplyDeletehttp://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/08/17/56525/scalia-actual-innocence/
Yeah, he's a real winner alright... Judges like him are the reason we have juries.