ATL has the latest scuttlebutt on the next generation of elites.

Professor Jonathan Adler respectfully dissents from this characterization of the Roberts Court.

Holy Hullabaloos has the scoop.

A lawyer teaching the Chief Justice a new word at oral argument.

Jan Crawford Greenburg has the details.

Blackadder penned an excellent post over the weekend re: the Supreme Court vacancies that will almost certainly occur during the next presidential term.

As Blackadder notes, the stakes for those who care about overturning Roe and its progeny are especially high this election cycle.

Courtesy of Human Events:

Q: On the Supreme Court, you have said you will make nominations of strict constructionists in the mold of Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. If such nominees are “borked,” defeated for confirmation in the Senate, will you promise to continue to send similar constructionist nominees to the Senate for confirmation?

A: Absolutely. I will send [judicial nominees] to the Senate with a record of strictly interpreting the Constitution of the United States. That’s what the founding fathers said they should do. It’s not an idea of mine. That’s what the founding fathers said when they called for the separation of branches [of government] — executive, legislative, and judicial. I mean to somehow think this is a departure of what our fathers have clearly stated is really a continuing puzzlement to me. My point is that judges who legislate from the bench are not within their line of responsibility as clearly cited by the Founding Fathers.

That’s music to my ears (except for his use of “strictly”).

Rock Star.

SCOTUS Blog has the details.

MSNBC has this report, and quotes yours truly.

You can read my quotes below the fold. (more…)

If only this fear were grounded in reality.

My fear is, of course, the exact opposite.

That having been said, I do believe that Senator McCain is a man of honor, and that he will do everything in his power to keep the promises he has made to conservatives about the type of men and women he will appoint to the federal bench.

My buddy Milbarge has the latest.

Stuart Taylor Jr. on the potential impact of this year’s presidential election on the future composition of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Here is today’s spit-take inducing comment, courtesy of David Broder, concerning Justice Anthony Kennedy appointment to the Supreme Court:

It turned out to be successful beyond Reagan’s wildest dreams.

And it gets, er, better:

Kennedy was exactly what Reagan thought — “a true conservative” and “a courageous, tough, but fair” jurist.

The 1987 edition of the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary went further, describing Kennedy as “courteous, stern on the bench, somewhat conservative, bright, well-prepared, filled with nervous energy, asks many questions, good analytical mind, not afraid to break new ground, open-minded, good business lawyer, hard to peg, an enigma, tends to agonize over opinions.”

None of those terms need revision 21 years later.

Okay, now that I’m done with my aneurysm, I can point out this article by Rich Lowry of National Review simply entitled “America’s Worst Justice” that nails Kennedy pretty well.

(h/t Confirm Them)

The June issue of Engage is available here, and you can watch the 2 hour Supreme Court review from July 1 here.  Podcasts discussing particular Scotus decisions are available here, including Nelson Lund on D.C. v. Heller, posted June 30.

As usual, Quin is spot on.

Governor Huckabee gives his thoughts on the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller over at The Next Right and at RedState.

For those of you who don’t have the time or inclination to read Heller, here is a summary of Justice Scalia’s majority opinion (with much of the specific rejoinders to the dissenters omitted):

-”The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.”

-”Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.” (more…)

I am still working my way through the majority opinion (I like reading footnotes), but I can already tell y’all this much: Scalia’s majority opinion is one of the worst judicial a*s whippings I have ever had the pleasure of reading. Nino smacks Stevens around like a red-headed stepchild. I almost feel sorry for the poor soul.*

Almost.  

In short, Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller is originalism at its finest.

(Cue weeping and gnashing of teeth by Publius and Morning’s Minion-who doesn’t even pretend to care about the Court correctly interpreting the Constitution)

I’ll have more soon.

*Scalia gets in a few digs at Breyer as well, but Stevens bears the brunt of Nino’s scorn in this opinion.

Update: O.k., I’ve finished reading Heller. There are a few weak spots in Scalia’s majority opinion, which I will discuss in due course. But all in all, Nino did an outstanding job of explaining and defending the original meaning of the Second Amendment. And fwiw, my guess is these weak spots have Justice Kennedy’s penumbra-stained finger prints all over them.

Now, I need to go and bill some hours for my employer. I’ll try to post more detailed thoughts/analysis on Heller this evening.

I thought my papist hommies would get a kick out of this passage from Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller:

The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist . . . shall or may have or keep in his House . . . any Arms . . . ”); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar).

Here is the opinion. I’ll highlight some of the choice passages soon.

From the syllabus:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home . . . .

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

(more…)

SCOTUS Blog is on the case.

Live Blogging Update: The decision will be released in the next minute or so (9:59 a.m.).

While we are waiting, the first decision has been handed down:

The Court has released the opinion in Davis v. Federal Election Commission (07-320), on whether the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment” to campaign finance laws, which relaxes campaign finance limits for opponents of congressional candidates spending more than $350,000 of their own money, violates either the First or Fifth Amendments. The ruling below, which upheld the law, is reversed and remanded.  

JusticeAlito wrote the opinion. Justice Stevens dissented in part, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer . . . .

Two more decisions to go, and Heller will be last (of course).

O.k., the second opinion has now come down. If you want details on it, go to the SCOTUS blog. It sounds really boring, and I don’t want to waste any space here discussing it. ;)

Finally, Heller. And the decision is . . . . that the D.C. Circuit’s opinion striking down D.C. gun ban has been affirmed. Hooray! Justice Scalia, as expected, wrote the majority opinion.  Here are the details:

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.  

 

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

Tom Goldstein -  Second  Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.

Tom Goldstein notes that “[i]t is striking that the decision is not clouded by ambiguity created by separate opinions. One opinion on each side.” He then corrected himself, noting “[a]pologies - there is a second dissenting opinion, but only one majority - no plurality and no concurrences.”

O.k., now let’s have a link to the opinion. 

Even the Living Constitutionalists think your opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana is unadulterated crap.

“This? Oh, I don’t use it much. I am more of a fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants kinda guy.”

Professor Mike O’Shea has some interesting thoughts on what to expect from a Scalia-penned majority decision in Heller. Here’s a taste:

I think a Scalia-authored opinion would be great news for those who are mainly concerned with the Second Amendment as a limit on federal gun control, but somewhat ambiguous news — at least in the short term — for those who hope for the incorporation of the Second Amendment as a check on state and municipal governments.

 Be sure to read the entire post. It’s extremely well done.

Courtesy of Mark R. Levin:

Let me put this bluntly — every time the Supreme Court meets in secret conference, it sits as a constitutional convention, rewriting the Constitution at will.

As someone who opposes the death penalty in all instances, and who also believes that death is too good for any rapist (put his sorry a*s on a Cool-Hand-Luke-style chain gang for life, I say), I obviously favor the outcome in this case. That having been said, Justice Kennedy’s “reasoning,” as usual, is beyond pathetic. The Court’s opinion today in Kennedy v. Louisiana, as in Roper v. Simmons, is a constitutional abomination. There is simply no basis in the Constitution’s text, history, or structure for the Court’s decision (which rests instead on the Court’s own “independent judgment” and “evolving standards of decency”).. It is nothing less than rule by judicial fiat. 

At some point, the American people are going to have to decide whether they wish to be ruled by nine (and in many cases five) unelected philosopher kings, or whether they would rather have the most contentious issues of public policy we face as a people hashed out in the legislative arena (as was envisioned by our founders/framers).

I, for one, favor the latter.

Oh, and given the nature of today’s decision, I thought I would excerpt a bit of my standard originalist stump speech that I give to Federalist Society chapters across this fine land of ours below the fold. Enjoy!

(more…)

This is a tad blue, but really funny.

Oh my:

Tom Goldstein -  The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller.   The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia.

I am as giddy as a school girl.

Professor Michael O’Shea gives us this excellent preview of Heller.

The opinion is not yet available online, but we do know the following:

Ben Winograd -  The Court has released the opinion in Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195) and Al-Odah v. United States (06-1196), on whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006 violates the habeas corpus rights of foreign detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. The ruling below, which found for the government, is reversed.  

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion. The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissented. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available

Update: Here is the opinion.