How Could a SCOTUS Justice Vote "No"?

Guns and more said:

Corrupt? Yes. Stupid? Not a chance. Go to the rich neighborhoods and talk to the republicans. They all vote for him. Why? He keeps their neighborhoods safe. Right or wrong, if a car with four black guys drives up to a park, within minutes there will be three police cars there. I've seen it. Daley gets it done. On the South side, the projects will all vote Democrat no matter what so he doesn't care what happens there.
Remember when his wife wanted Miggs field to be a park? Others were suing to keep it an airfield, so Daley had the runway bulldozed at midnight. It's a park.
Don't get in his way, Chicago isn't too far from Community Organizer, Al Capone.
Obama learned well.

Click to expand...

That's pretty wild! We've all heard talk about the "Chicago machine", etc. likening the situation to Tammany Hall, or the Daley's own personal fiefdom.

It truly is enlightening, however, to have some first-hand examples set forth. Thanks!

Well SCOTUS judges really aren't that smart. Look at Heller. It took 9 'smart judges' some 60 pages for only 5 of them to correctly state what any nitwit college level history/law scholar could figure out:

I'll cut it down into a sentence: The 2nd Amendment, like all the others, was an individual right to keep and bear contemporary, man portable, weapons (to include guns, knives, swords, axes and bows) that an infantryman would commonly carry (if given no laws prohibiting ownership) in order to keep domestic or foreign tyranny at bay and to keep the established state and federal governments from corrupt powergrabs, because we fought against tryanny with guns, and guns are the true equalizer against mighty evil governments and armies.

It's as plain as day, yet 4 "intelligent" scholars of law got it wrong. Tell me there isn't corruption and I'll tell you there's a Santa Clause.

Heller, while a great 2A victory, was disappointing to me because it dispelled the myth that the SCOTUS is honest.

@Jimmy

Or you could read the House version of the same law. It's under B2. Take your time.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-197

I've read it, but that is the earlier bill, introduced 1/6/09 and sent to Committee on 2/9/09. It does contain a paragraph that would force states to accept CC from other states, even if the state doesn't allow CC for it's own residents. But that would take away the states right to choose on allowing CC, and had no chance of passing.

So on 3/19/09 they introduced HR1620, which was sent to Committee on 4/27/09. The paragraph that took away the states right to choose was dropped, and it has the same wording as both Senate bills. It also added an effective date of 180 days after the bill is enacted.

The Senate also has two bills, S371 introduced on 2/3/09 and sent to Committee on the same day, and S845 the later bill introduced on 4/21/09 and sent to Committee on 7/23. A hearing is set for S845.

I'd prefer to keep the federal government out of things. State reciprocity is working fine and continues to leave it up to them. The Senate version is a better version, though. I wouldn't get to worked up if it passed but I just don't like the road it begins. The Feds screw everything up that they touch. Everything.

Judicial reasoning and decisions, okay. Politics, nokay.