Thursday, February 21, 2019

Second Amendment, Supreme Court, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, February, 2019



For eight years after the McDonald v. Chicago decision, the Supreme Court refused to enforce the Second Amendment.

President Trump has appointed two constitutionalist and originalist Justices, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh. After those appointments, the  Supreme Court agreed to hear the first Second Amendment firearms case since McDonald:  New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. NYC. The official decision to accept the case was on 22 January, 2019.

The next question was, when will the oral arguments for the case be heard?  The possibilities began in April in 2019. If oral arguments were not heard in April, they would be heard in October or later.

Second Amendment supporters are justifiably frustrated with the slow pace of judicial enforcement of Second Amendment rights. Many believe some courts have been deliberately slowing down the process, hoping for the election of a president hostile to the Second Amendment.

The oral argument calendar for the Supreme Court for April has been published. New York Rifle & Pistol Association is not scheduled for April.

This could be significant because the oldest justice on the Court is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg has been hostile to the Second Amendment. She believes it does not apply to the modern world, because it is old.

 Justice Ginsburg voted against  the Heller decision. She voted against the McDonald decision. Her opinion on the Second Amendment is clear.   From armsandthelaw.com:

"If the court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new," she said. "It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.""
Ruth's position, is to define the Second Amendment out of existence, without any real argument, because she believes it has no purpose in modern society. The fallback position is that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals. That is the essential Progressive position on the entire Constitution. It is old, therefore we can ignore it.
Justice Ginsburg has been recovering from cancer surgery that removed on of the lobes of one of her lungs. She is said to be recovering satisfactorily.

The next oral arguments are on Tuesday, 19 February, 2019. Reuters has reported that Justice Ginsburg was at the Supreme Court on Friday, 15 February, 2019,  for a private conference to decide whether or not to take a case deciding if the Executive Branch can add a question to the 2020 census that has been on the census before.

The plantiffs claim the question, about citizenship, might incentivize minorities to avoid being counted on the census. From reuters.com:
Friday’s conference proved highly significant, with the justices agreeing to decide the fate of a bid by President Donald Trump’s administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, which opponents say will scare immigrant communities from participating, leading to an undercount.
No pictures of Justice Ginsburg, in private or public, taken since December 15, 2018, have been published, that I have found.

Update: Justice Ginsburg attended the oral arguments on 19 February, 2019, and appeared to have recovered from her surgery. 

Justice Ginsburg is the oldest Justice on the Supreme Court. Her birthday is  on 15 March. Next month, she will be 86 years old.

Eight months from now is the earliest oral arguments will be heard for New York Rifle & Pistol Association. When you are 86, in failing health, eight months is a long time.

©2019 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch 













5 comments:

Paul Weber said...

If the US Supreme Court were to succinctly notice the 2nd Amendment phrase "shall not be infringed" and then declare that makes all gun control laws un-Constitutional the issue would be solved.

Anonymous said...

Take a careful read through Heller. There were two holdings. The first, declaring the 2nd to be an individual right, was unanimous. RBG is vile, but the facts of the Heller case are important.

We, as a pro-gun community, fail on this point almost every time. We can correctly say "The unanimous finding of the Heller decision affirm that all citizens have gun rights."

Dean Weingarten said...

Yes, you are correct. Thanks for bringing that up.

It is important to be accurate.

The problem is RBGs interpretation of the individual right would have left us with a Second Amendment that meant very little.


Wireless.Phil said...

Sure it wasn't part of her brain was removed?

Anonymous said...

Fact, The constitution was written to be enforced as written there is no written authority for any one to interpret the constitution or any law. the oath of office requires any one that takes that oath to uphold the constitution it does not say as my opinion allows me. The supreme court has ruled in the Marbury v Madison case any law repugnant to the constitution is void it also has ruled that if the authority to do any thing is not written that authority does not exist and can not be construed to exist. There is no written authority to interpret the constitution in the constitution. How many gun owners have actually ever read the constitution and the bill of rights? we are a nation of laws not opinions. Most of the amendments were written due to political pressure and supported by people ignorant of what the constitution already has under control without interpretation. read the amendments and see the politics.