WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. THIS BLOG HAS BEEN CALLED "THE DEFINITIVE BLOG ON MIAMI CRIMINAL LAW" BY THE NY TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE POPE, AND DONALD TRUMP WHO ALSO ONCE SAID IT WAS "REALLY GREAT". POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

A CONSTITUTIONAL ORPHAN

A man and his guns. 

In Silvester v. Becerra, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a fourteen page dissent from the court's decision not to grant cert and review California's ten day waiting period to buy a firearm.

"The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this court's constitutional orphan" Thomas fumed.

"We have not heard argument in a Second Amendment case for nearly eight years" the silent Justice whined. "And we have not clarified the standard for assessing Second Amendment claims for almost 10."

Rumpole wonders how many years has it been since the court heard a Third Amendment case (prohibition against the quartering of soldiers in homes) , or an eighteenth amendment case (prohibition against sale and manufacture of liquor)?  Should the length of time between the court hearing issues be in fact an issue raised on cert?

Say this for Justice Marcel Marceau, (judges, click here), the man has timing. Because what the world needs now, are guns, more guns...not just for some, but for everyone...

From Occupied and heavily armed America, Fight the Power without shooting. 


 

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Rumpole wonders how many years has it been since the court heard a Third Amendment case (prohibition against the quartering of soldiers in homes) , or an eighteenth amendment case (prohibition against sale and manufacture of liquor)?"

The comparison is so remarkably silly. As to the third amendment, when was the last time you ever heard of soldiers actually being quartered in a home (even in a time of war!). As to the eighteenth amendment, I can't even understand why you'd mention it, as I'm sure you are aware it was repealed 85 years ago (ill confess I had to consult Wikipedia to discover it was only in effect a total of 13 years from 1920 to 1933).

By comparison, the internet (which is never wrong) suggests that approximately one third of Americans live in a household with a gun. That's 107 million people. Also, every state and a ton of localities have gun laws.

So as to the point Thomas was making, I'm going to go ahead and agree with him. As to whether we need more guns, that's another story.

Anonymous said...

Hope you post about FCDL Awards. An amazing slate!

Anonymous said...

Thomas has been crucial in some of the most important opinions in recent history. Right to confront witnesses. Right to smoke marijuana for medical purposes. And most importantly, the right for a criminal defense lawyer not to get in trouble when his client launders his legal fee. Not sure why any self respecting criminal lawyer who likes to take a toke every now again would hate on him. I can see ripping him for Anita Hill but being silent is a skill most do not possess, but should.. shhhhhhhhh

Anonymous said...

Rump's use of "fumed" and "whined" to describe Thomas's argument is the last bastion of losers. When you cannot win an argument on legal or rational bases, ridicule your opponent.

The left's entire position (like chanting "Burn her!" at the NRA rep at the town-hall, or the student leader tweeting that Republicans should be "punched" and NRA members "killed") betrays a terrible ignorance of rational argument or political persuasion. These are the ways you want to convince citizens to bequeath a right? Good luck with that.

I own no guns and could give a shit about guns. But it's obvious that the Constitution's authors believed the right to bear them was not something to be tolerated because you "need" or "like guns". It's a fundamental right to do with being a person. If Rump or his co-partisans struggle to understand that, they might consider their own, no doubt, vociferous support of abortion rights - which of course receive no such explicit support in the Constitution. Abortion ought to be legal, they would surely argue, not only after someone justifies that she "needs" it, or not only when it is proven to enact no social cost, but despite all these considerations because it is, fundamentally, a RIGHT.

One great tragedy of the lack of citizenship education is the profound ignorance people have about this idea, that of having rights that exist completely independently of the graciousness of a government. Funny, though, that when it comes to the right to marry or the right to terminate a pregnancy, leftists understand the sanctity of rights very clearly.

In any regard, national gun violence continues to drop every year in the US. Pockets of intense gun violence are mostly limited to gun-free urban zones. These facts, of course, are excluded from polite conversation. Any sincere discussion about saving lives from gun violence should be rooted in real data.

Anonymous said...

3:59 p.m. excellent comment!

Anonymous said...

Gun free zones kill.