Here are legal scholars who have also criticised the decision:
- Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Of Guns, Abortions, and the Unraveling Rule of Law, 95 Va. L. Rev. 253 (2009)
- Judge Richard A. Posner, In Defense of LoosenessThe Supreme Court and gun control.
- Shaman, Jeffrey M. The Wages of Originalist Sin: District of Columbia v. Heller
- Solum Lawrence B., DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER AND ORIGINALISM
- Potter, Robert L. A Caustic Critique of District of Columbia v Heller: An Extreme Makeover of the SecondAmendment
- Merkel, William "Heller as Hubris, and How McDonald v. City of Chicago May Well Change the Constitutional World As We Know It," 50 Santa Clara Law Review 1221 (2010). [403 KB PDF]
-
Merkel, William "The District of Columbia v. Heller and Antonin Scalia's Perverse Sense of Originalism," 13 Lewis and Clark Law Review 349 (2009).
» Cited in Breyer dissent: McDonald v. City of Chicago, Illinois (U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2010, p. 3). - Merkel, William "Parker v. the District of Columbia and the Hollowness of Originalist Claims to Principled Neutrality," 18 George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal 251 (2008).
- Merkel, William "A Cultural Turn: Reflections on Recent Historical and Legal Writing on the Second Amendment," 17 Stanford Law & Policy Review 671 (2006).
- Merkel, William "Scottish Factors and the Origins of the Second Amendment: Some Reflections on David Thomas Konig's Rediscovery of the Caledonian Background to the American Right to Arms," 22 Law and History Review 169 (2004) (with Professor H. Richard Uviller).
- Merkel, William "Authors Reply to Commentaries on, and Criticisms of The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent," 12 William and Mary Bill of Rights Law Journal 357 (2004) (with H. Richard Uviller).
- Merkel, William "To See Oneself as the Target of Justified Revolution: Thomas Jefferson and Gabriel's Uprising," 4 American Nineteenth Century History 1 (2003) (read abstract).
- Merkel, William "The Second Amendment in Context: The Case of the Vanishing Predicate," 76 Chicago-Kent Law Review 403 (2000) (with Professor H. Richard Uviller) (764 KB PDF; requires Adobe Acrobat Reader).
A libertarian critique on the topic Balko,Radley, A Hollow Victory? Assessing the real world impact of D.C. v. Heller
So far, all I see, Dimbo, is that you say that Five Supreme Court Justices have come up with a decision that has been subject to serious criticism in the legal community.
"So far, all I see, Dimbo, is that you say that Five Supreme Court Justices have come up with a decision that has been subject to serious criticism in the legal community."
ReplyDeleteThere is, however, one big difference between the 5 justices and your list of gun control lawyers: Only the 5 justices really matter, the others do not.
That is not correct FWM; first of all, you are mistaken if you dismiss this as gun control lawyers. There is serious criticism of these five justices that goes far beyond gun control advocates, and the issues involved with what they do, including conflicts of interest, and legislating from the bench go far beyond gun control as well.
DeleteSecondly, don't believe for a moment that what others think, across such a broad spectrum of criticism doesn't matter. The issues that are raised are so significant that they are going to matter very much, and quite possibly sooner than later. For example, it is reported that Clarence Uncle Tom Thomas is not in good health and may retire during the next presidential term.
That five Justice majority may change sooner than later. If that occurs the legitimacy of thsoe decisions could be very brief; it is a mistake to assume they are permanent. There are enough serious, genuine issues for those to change. And the nature of who is making what arguments is significant.
When you have for example two constitutional legal powerhouses who were on opposite sides in the Bush elections come together to argue on behalf of same sex marriage equality, they have the potential to make a very large incremental change in rulings.
It matters very much who is on BOTH sides of the bench, not just on the Justices side.
Yes, thsoe 5 Justices FOR THE MOMENT are determining what happens for the present. That is not true in the longer term, and they themselves set teh precedent for undoing those Supreme Court decisions, by so totally effectively ignoring stare decisis.
You cannot legitimately claim that only those 5 Justices matter when the larger issue of undoing stare decisis matters more, longer term -- and possibly very near term. You are wrong.
This is a case of you trying to dismiss some important issues and a very large cross section of opinion that is NOT just gun regulation advocates, and their legal thinking as jurisprudence experts DOES matter, it matters very much. The ISSUES involved of bad Justice decisions matters very much.
You are being intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise because you see it favoring something you want.
That's what you think, FWM.
DeleteAnd yet another ignornat comment, which DG already dealt with.
Yet another reason to dislike Heller-McDonald, using the Second Amendment in a cynical manner to make sure people keep the "right type of justices" on the court.
But, there's a big problem here. You can no longer criticise the methodology used in Roe v. Wade if you approve of Heller-McDonald since the Heller court went way beyond Roe in creating law.
"There is, however, one big difference between the 5 justices and your list of gun control lawyers: Only the 5 justices really matter, the others do not."
ReplyDeleteTwo words. Dred Scott.