Why all the 5-4 decisions in the SCOTUS?

[achiro]

I mean Geez, they get all preachy and stuff saying that they want to uphold the law and constitution and stuff yet most decisions are that close. I know its a niave stance but you'd think if the law was truly the law and not their personal opinions that we would see a lot more 8-1, 9-0 type decisions.

[Fugue]

the lib justices make sh*t up as they go along. :D

[47straight]

Because reasonable people may disagree about the law.





Or because those who disagree with me are idiots, one of the two.

[yermom]

well, you have to overcome the libs vs. the pubz

not everything is a universally held belief, or interpretation

take abortion, for example...

if something had to be unanimous, it would never happen

[soonerscuba]

I would say that 99.9999% of every legal case in the country filed each year would come down to 9-0, 8-1 decisions, but for what it takes for a case to get to the SC, by necessity have to be pretty controversial or interesting. That and the political nature of appointment in regards to the executive, a thought I'm sure Al Gore thinks about each night as he goes to sleep.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

you'd think if the law was truly the law and not their personal opinions

We have a winnah.

How in the hell does this...


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Equal any remote interpretation of this?


"The opinion the court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons," Stevens wrote.

Why do you NEED new evidence? It's COMMA, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It doesn't get any more clear. And for some unholy reason, this is treated as less of a right than those held most dear. I fail to see a difference. And I fail to see how it's not clear as a crystal bell to those in opposition.

[achiro]

Because reasonable people may disagree about the law.

Oh, I understand that. The question though is why do they disagree in about the same groupings so consistantly if the law is the law and not a personal agenda. ;)

[Fugue]

I would say that 99.9999% of every legal case in the country filed each year would come down to 9-0, 8-1 decisions, but for what it takes for a case to get to the SC, by necessity have to be pretty controversial or interesting. That and the political nature of appointment in regards to the executive, a thought I'm sure Al Gore thinks about each night as he goes to sleep.


good point, if AG is pres, gun rights are gone today.

[yermom]

it's very much a personal agenda. that's why it's such a big deal when the pres nominates one

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

judicial review is one of the most broken items in government because it wasn't officially noted until a decade after the constitution was enforced. had the constitutional convention fleshed out judicial review i hardly think they would have ever:

a) let a law be ruled unconstitutional by a simple majority vote, yet make amending the constitution a crazy majority.

b) allowed such loopholes as adding justices (or taking away) so that the other branches of government could influence "constitutionality" by changing the court size

[SoonerInKCMO]

We have a winnah.

How in the hell does this...



Equal any remote interpretation of this?



Why do you NEED new evidence? It's COMMA, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It doesn't get any more clear. And for some unholy reason, this is treated as less of a right than those held most dear. I fail to see a difference. And I fail to see how it's not clear as a crystal bell to those in opposition.

I think it's the first part of the amendment that links the right to bear arms to the need of a "well regulated militia" that creates the gray area we have now.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Hence the comma.

And hence the words "the right of the people".

That's what hangs me up. Reading that, it tells me that 1) a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State and 2) the people have the undeniable right to keep and bear arms. Therefore the people, armed, are necessary for the security of a free State.

Put into the context of the times, it makes sense given Joe Farmer and Bill Silversmith swapped lead with British regulars just like Colonial regulars did. And given it made sense then, just like the freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances, trial by jury of one's peers, and the freedom of speech and practice of religion, the question should be posed, WHY does it not make sense now?

Because of gun violence?


Take away the right to say "f***" and you take away the right to say "f*** the government." ~Lenny Bruce

Does that crude, but applicable quote not apply here as well?

[Rogue]

To me, it keeps it reasonable. Having watched one party in power of both houses and the POTUS makes me never want to see it again.

And, in reading the opinions, both sides are well-reasoned.