By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Chicago handgun-ban case that was recently ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court was decided by a 5-4 decision. The Conservatives voted to protect gun rights, and the Liberals voted to take away gun rights. Then, the writers of the opinions worked to craft an explanation that somehow made sense. In both cases, they failed miserably.
Stevens' dissenting opinion wastes page after page of why he believes your right to own a gun should be taken away from you, and Alito's argues to the contrary. Then, as they make their arguments, they try to squeeze the Constitution into a little box in support of their own opinion.
I believe the Constitution, however, had nothing to do with the ruling, and was only used as an afterthought in an effort to justify their decisions.
A 5-4 vote down party lines tells me the decision by the Supreme Court on the McDonald v. Chicago case was based on agenda. The Conservatives wanted gun rights protected, and the Liberals wanted gun rights taken away - but where in the Constitution does it allow for their decisions?
Before answering that question, consider State Sovereignty, and the fact that with the Court's decision, the federal government is telling the City of Chicago they have to "do away with their gun ban laws. . . oh, by the way, we think the Constitution applies because of the 14th Amendment."
That is not applying the law, that is interpreting the law, and then twisting it to fit an agenda.
I am disappointed in all nine justices.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment