Do you think the NRA suit will go on appeal? Jackass.

You practice your speeches in the mirror, Sparkles? You have to have a suit before it can be appealed. Nice try to cover your lardy ass in the first misstatement you (or the ineptitude of whoever is writing for you) made.

Buzz: The noise made by a gnat or a gadfly. Hardly worth noticing!

So Proof, is Kennedy good now or bad? He was the deciding vote.

Kennedy—Reagan’s third and final appointee—often finds himself speaking for the court in announcing its most significant liberal decisions.

The split between Scalia and Kennedy goes back more than a decade. At first, they seemed to have much in common. They were born in 1936, grew up in Catholic families, went to high school in the ‘50s and then to Harvard Law School. Both were Republicans and were put on the courts by Reagan. When Kennedy moved to the Washington area in 1988, he and his wife, Mary, bought a house in the same McLean, Va., neighborhood as Scalia.

So if Bill Ayers equals Obama by simple association, then Scalia must equal Kennedy, right. Oh my God, they went to the same school so they must be buddy’s, they live in the same neighborhood so they must think the same. They are even both Catholic (The largest cult in the world, according to McCain) so they MUST think and act the same by Republican rational. Case closed. Scalia is a liberal.

Over at Powerline, Scott Johnson takes a look at both the recent Kennedy and Boumediene decisions, finding both constitutionally insupportable.  His conclusion, that we should re-examine our near-blind obeisance to judicial supremacy, is revolutionary.

Whence comes the Court’s authority to render the judgment in cases such as Kennedy? It is entirely self-created, based on the Court’s ipse dixit. This is not the way it’s supposed to work…

The Court’s handiwork in Boumediene represents a more recent and more consequential appropriation of power whose limits have not yet even begun to be tested, and it flies in the face of the Court’s own previous jurisprudence.

Our acquiescence in the doctrine of judicial supremacy is of long standing, but it is time to revisit it in the spirit of Abraham Lincoln. In Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Allen Guelzo reminds us that Lincoln

“mistrusted the federal judiciary and expected that any emancipation initiatives which came directly from his hand would be struck down in the courts.”

Guelzo’s reminder helps us understand Lincoln’s last Annual Message to Congress (December 6, 1864):

“In presenting the abandonment of armed resistance to the national authority on the part of the insurgents, as the only indispensable condition to ending the war on the part of the government, I retract nothing heretofore said as to slavery. I repeat the declaration made a year ago, that ‘while I remain in my present position I shall not attempt to retract or modify the emancipation proclamation, nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of that proclamation, or by any of the Acts of Congress.’ If the people should, by whatever mode or means, make it an Executive duty to re-enslave such persons, another, and not I, must be their instrument to perform it.”

Translation: If the courts, or any other institution, nullify the Emancipation Proclamation, I will nevertheless continue to enforce it. Where is the spirit of Lincoln today?

Where, indeed!  Now that’s revolution, brother!

It’s a done deal, celebrate! The people won!

Where’s the fat lady?
I don’t hear any singing.

So Proof, is Kennedy good now or bad? He was the deciding vote.

Buzz: As in: “Too much caffeine?”. I have never said that Justice Kennedy was “good” or “bad”! Your world is really a simplistic one, isn’t it?

Buzz: The noise made by a gnat or a gadfly. Hardly worth noticing!

Much ado about nothing.

The 2nd Amendment is moot.

If you have a gun

if police think you
might have a gun

if you are driving a car

any law enforcement officer
can disarm you, or kill you
because of the threat you present.

Life on the Streets

How do you think Scalia, Alito and Roberts would find
if an DEA agent shot you as you pulled a flashlight from
your glovebox?

The past two days of Supreme Court decisions have shed a bright light on Obama’s rightward pivot for the general election. Yesterday in the child rape case, Obama agreed with two Justices he voted against and disagreed with those he holds up as models. Today, revising a long held position on gun control, he agrees with Justice Scalia’s reading of the Second Amendment and again disagrees with Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens. If only the Court could overturn Roe before the election, Obama would become a pro-lifer.

-Yuval Levin, The Corner
Perhaps, Buzz, you could ask Fast Eddie Obama which justices are “good” and “bad”?

The 2nd Amendment is moot.

Moot?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.