Friday, September 3, 2010

Laci on the Supreme Court

Our friend Laci wrote a very interesting piece about the Supreme Court, which touches on a number of our favorite angles. Here's the wrap up.

True supporters of the Constitution should be appalled at the Heller-McDonald decisions for what it did to the Second Amendment. The even more amusing part is that Scalia has trashed everything that he claimed to believe in by putting his name to this piece of shit, although one can truly question what type of biased hack he is to have not recused himself from this decision. Better yet, one must question what he is doing as a Supreme Court Justice as his presence on the bench does nothing to dignify the institution.

One must decide the law based upon the law, not one’s personal biases.

Anyway, the fix is in and everybody got fucked: especially the Constitution.

What's your opinion? Don't you think there was too little said about Justice Scalia's gun bias. I remember some scant references to the fact that he'd had a personal interest in the case which went beyond judicial experience.

What about the question of "individual rights?" The pro gun folks always said that was the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but isn't it true that these were the first Supreme Court rulings about that? And given the skin-of-the-teeth victory, don't you think it could have easily gone the other way, and probably will in the future?

Please leave a comment.


  1. Laci's owner tends to project many personal biases, so I doubt this person is qualified to identify biases in a federal judge.

  2. Oh, and it's pretty obvious that Van Dyke didn't botherr reading the post.


  3. If only the Supreme Court were made up of superlawyers then Laci wouldn't have to spend so much time beating his dead horse.

  4. And FWM once again proves that he doesn't really care about the law anyway.

    And also didn't read the original post.

    BTW, to answer the question, Maybe Scalia wrote the Heller decision as a distraction. That is the gunloons believe he is on their camp: so whatever he says must be "correct".

    Sort of like the way that "all the justices have concluded that the Second Amendment protects an individual right".

    Of course, people such as Van Dyke and FWM can't really be bothered with thinking about things.


  5. "One must decide the law based upon the law, not one’s personal biases."

    In what fantasy world do they do this?

  6. Wow--three posts in little over an hour.

    I must have struck a nerve.

    Glad you liked the picture. I'll adopt a new picture every day. This one is in honor of the Discovery shooter who was a fan of the man pictured.

  7. Van Dyke, What are you talking about? Is Scalia biased towards the gun cause or not?

  8. The claim that he should be excused because he owned guns is absurd.

    It's like requiring family court judges sit out any case involving children if they themselves have children.

    Laci's owner's legal perception is so warped he doesn't even believe in presumption of innocence.

  9. I usually hate comparisons and find them wanting. Yours about the family court judge who has kids is one of the worst.

    I don't think the complaint is that Scalia is a simple gun owner. His involvement in the gun right's debate goes much deeper than that does it not?

  10. Idunno Mike.

    Laci's owner accuses me of not reading the subject of this post, and yet only one paragraph mentions a supposed bias.

    That's the only paragraph you could make heads or tails of, is it not?

    What does he mean by the right to bear arms being a civic right, and yet the people have no right to own them? No right to use them? (Except in Kennesaw, of course, but I fail to see how this prevents free speech or exercise of religion.)

    Do you think Laci's owner shows bias by calling for a strict reading and an amendment of the constitution to allow for self-defense, and yet in the same sentence claim that the Supreme Court is not allowed to interpret constitutionality of law with which that very Constitution grants it? How does he feel about "right to privacy"? "Separation of church and state"? "Confidential abortions for minors?" Should those just go away like this supposed non-codified right to "self defense"?

    Is Laci's owner just not personally biased against the other quoted phrases?

    What the hell does "judicial amendment" as used in his post mean? Is this the same amendment that was made with Heller which he says is not allowed? Does he really mean judicial interpretation or is he confusing that with the congressional amendment process?