It is bad enough for Supreme Court Justices to throw political shibboleths in private conversations or even in speeches on the lecture circuit, but it is even more egregious when they show their political bias openly in public statements to the sensationalist media and immerse themselves in disgraceful political controversies.
David Oedel is incorrect in his assertion (“A right to armed revolt?”, 1/27) that Justice Scalia’s opinion in D.C. vs. Heller limits the right to keep and bear arms to weapons “in common use at the time” the Second Amendment was ratified. In fact, in his decision Justice Scalia characterizes such arguments as “bordering on the frivolous.”
Just this week, as I was commenting on Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 or National Defense law that was signed by President Barack Obama, the question came up of whether the Supreme Court would rule this offending portion unconstitutional. My response follows:
Nominated by President Barack Obama (after Justice John Paul Stevens retired in April 2010), Elena Kagan has been the first U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointed without prior experience as a judge since the appointment of William Rehnquist in 1972. It now seems to me that her nomination by President Obama was payback for the fact that Kagan had legally represented him in stalling all court challenges attempting to ascertain Obama's citizenship.(1) But what about her standing on the Second Amendment?
The Hippocratic Oath, Abortion, and the U.S. Supreme Court