The US Supreme Court has another chance to prove that US justice is not the best money can buy in the case of McDonald v. Chicago. Bouyed by its success in DC v. Heller, the Cato institute is yet again posed to prove the US justice runs by the golden rule: those with the gold make the rules. Unlike DC v. Heller, they are much more blatant that they have been plaintiff shopping in their attempt to rewrite the constitution to their interpretation. Added by the stupidity of the American public regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment as a guarantee against the establishment of a standing army now that the military budget has gone out of control (remember that "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" P.T. Barnum), they may just pull it off.
The rest of the article contains a fascinating description of Patrick Henry's ideas concerning the 2nd amendment. This, according to historian Henry Mayer, perfectly supports the belief held by many that the current understanding of the 2nd amendment is so twisted and distorted from its original sense that it's practically unrecognizable.
What's your opinion? Is Laci right in saying, "[f]ive supreme court justices may again show that my dog has a better understanding of the law than they do?"
Please leave a comment.