Justice Scalia is Awesome...McDonald Excerpt

Status
Not open for further replies.
StrikeFire83

StrikeFire83

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
1,183
Location
Texas
Okay, did anybody else laugh their asses off when they read this exchange? It seems like Mr. Feldman can't remember or understand what the court ruled two years ago...no wonder he has problems with the 2nd Amendment!

MR. FELDMAN: I think the Court in Heller did hold that a ban on -- a ban on handguns is invalid. That was the holding of the case. And these are -these were laws that were passed that are very close to that. In the 1860's and the 1870's, in Texas, in Wyoming, places that -- not necessarily for the whole State -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Handguns in the home? Handguns in the home? That's what Heller addressed?

MR. FELDMAN: They banned -- well, not -- I can't say that they banned handguns in the home per -

JUSTICE SCALIA: No, you can't, because they didn't.
Click to expand...
 
.
Great answer by Gura.


Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the liberal dissenters from Heller, said gun possession was different in nature from the other rights described in the Constitution.

When state or local lawmakers enact gun regulations, they do so aiming to protect public safety, he said.

"Here every case will be on one side guns, on the other side human life," with each side marshalling statistics, he said. He asked Alan Gura, an Alexandria, Va., lawyer challenging the Illinois laws, why federal judges were better-positioned to make that decision than state legislatures.

"We decide that by looking, not to which side has the better statistics, but rather to what the framers said in the Constitution, because that policy choice was made for us in the Constitution," Mr. Gura said.
Click to expand...
.
 
It just gets me so irritated that the second amendment is the only one that says they cant mess with it and the liberals feel they can for public safety. Breyer it is different in nature then the rest shall not be infringed means you cant screw with it no matter the reason.
 
There were a few times where I laughed. My favorite was when Scalia said, "and how does your argument make any sense?"
 
My favorite exchange:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Is that what you are asserting here, that the States have to allow firearms?

MR. FELDMAN: No.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Is that -

MR. FELDMAN: I -- I didn't think I was.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I didn't think so, either, so why did your last argument make any sense?
Click to expand...
:)
 
MR. FELDMAN:....And I don't see any reason to think that there will be a jurisdiction that would try to sufficiently ban firearms that people wouldn't have a reasonable means of self-defense.

JUSTICE SCALIA: The District of Columbia did.
 
I believe Justice Ginsberg will come down on the side of incorporation, there will be a maximum of 2 dissenters, Breyer and or Stevens. This opinion is based on the transcript and the questions that were asked and answered.
 
I believe Justice Ginsberg will come down on the side of incorporation, there will be a maximum of 2 dissenters, Breyer and or Stevens. This opinion is based on the transcript and the questions that were asked and answered.
Click to expand...
My feeling is:
Same 5 majority as Heller.

Sotomayor will strike down the ban, but will do so by issuing a concurring opinion in favor of limited incorporation.

Stevens and Breyer will dissent.

Ginsburg will join either Sotomayor or the dissent.
 
For all GWB's mistakes, imho, he got the most important three things that happened in his administration right...

1. it's a war on terrorist, and not a law enforcement operation
2. Roberts
3. Scalia
 
For all GWB's mistakes, imho, he got the most important three things that happened in his administration right...

1. it's a war on terrorist, and not a law enforcement operation
2. Roberts
3. Scalia
Click to expand...

Scalia was appointed by Reagan in '86.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top