November 8, 2009

They can't both be right*

Said Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen:
Last year, after [being] granted permission by the State Assembly, I filed an amicus brief in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller. This case recognized the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment. However, the case revolved around the actions of the government of the District of Columbia, a federal entity. The Supreme Court did not decide on whether this right would apply to states and local governments.
But, said Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick:
Sotomayor’s position is to the left of even the activist Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which concedes, albeit reluctantly, that Heller prohibits both state and federal interference with the gun rights of law-abiding citizens.
There are other arguments for merit selection as well.
Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is the right to carry any particular kind of weapon.
— Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook
Meaning: An individual State's power to regulate firearms is constitutionally a weightier concern than is the federal government's historically more recent interest in interfering with that power. Judge Easterbrook's views are probably too conservative for conservatives.

By which I mean situationally inconvenient to their liberalism.

And, based on the foaming orgy of Republicans bellowing "Trial lawyers! Trial lawyers!" last night in the House of Representatives, I wouldn't expect conservatives to start calling for the incorporation of the 7th Amendment's guarantee of civil jury trials any time soon.

Although they would more than likely approve a twenty-dollar cap on medical malpractice damages: "original intention" and all that.

(Incidentally, don't those impertinent Republican bellowers understand that criminal prosecutors are trial lawyers too?)

* Van Hollen is right.

No comments: