From Power Line:

Conservatives have long said that the day would come when liberal judges declare the Constitution unconstitutional. That happened today, when a gay federal judge in San Francisco, relying on the opinions of mostly-gay “expert” witnesses, ruled that an amendment to the California constitution, which was adopted in perfectly proper fashion by a substantial majority of voters, is “unconstitutional.” In this context, unconstitutional means “unpopular with me and my friends.”

Last week, Judge Susan Bolton, the judge hearing the Arizona Immigration Law case, said this:

“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler.

“How is there a preemption issue?” the judge asked. “I understand there may be other issues, but you’re arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?”

Yet in a ruling today she noted this:

[T]he United States has demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on its claim that the mandatory immigration verification upon arrest requirement contained in Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law. This requirement, as stated above, is likely to burden legally-present aliens, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s directive in Hines that aliens not be subject to “the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” 312 U.S. at 74. Further, the number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established.

That last part (highlighted) is a crock. Everyone knows that the Feds are NOT doing their job. How is doing the job going to overload them?

The judge, a Clinton appointee, is using judicial fiat to reinvent the law. Moreover, she invokes a 1941 SCOTUS ruling - Hines -which is an entirely unrelated decision regarding immigration. I wonder what (or who) caused her to reverse what she was saying just last week?

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer promised to appeal the decision in the Ninth Circuit court (which will probably agree and rule for the injunction) and to the Supreme Court if necessary. Governor Brewer said “It’s just a “bump in the road.” and “This is far from over.”

Federal Judge Susan Bolton who is presiding over the hearing on Arizona SB 1070, the immigration enforcement law, wonders why the DOJ would ever pursue the law as a Federal preemption case.

“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).

Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department’s argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is “preempted” by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.

“How is there a preemption issue?” the judge asked. “I understand there may be other issues, but you’re arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?”

Captain Ed at Hot Air speculates that the Feds will get laughed out of court sooner than later.

Or, maybe, Cirque du Insane?

Earlier this week, Alan Gura and associates filed the Petitioners “On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit.” I downloaded the Petitioners .pdf document yesterday and started looking through it for a little light reading.

The document contains a ‘Summary of Argument‘ which I have summarized even further here. Disclaimer: this summary in no way intends to profess anything other than a citizen’s interpretation of the contents of the summary.

Section 1 states that the Court has never directly addressed the question of the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation of the Second Amendment. It claims confusion is the result of inaction and the Court now has the opportunity to set straight the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of gun owners civil rights.

Section 2 speaks to the Fourteenth Amendment’s ‘Privileges or Immunities‘ clause which forbids the States from abridging civil rights including, unambiguously, the right to keep and bear arms.

Section 3 brings up The SlaughterHouse Cases of 1873. SlaughterHouse transformed the Framers’ broad protection of individual liberty, commonly understood, into a clause securing only the most obscure rights.

Section 4 speaks about The Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that no person be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Accordingly, most of the rights secured in the first eight amendments have been deemed incorporated as against the States.

The States ratified the Fourteenth Amendment during reconstruction. The amendment sought to restore civil rights that some of the states had stripped away from blacks and abolitionists after the Civil War, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Now is the time for SCOTUS to restore those civil rights to the citizens of Chicago and, indeed, to all Americans.

Also, here’s another chance to weigh in on Sonia Sotomayor:

I guess that SCOTUS is saving the best for last. The Court, once again, did not announce the DC vs. Heller opinion.

The following is from ScotusBlog:

Guns is not being decided today. Last opinion coming now.

UPDATE: HELLER AFFIRMED! (6/26/2008 10:12 AM EDT)

We can now predict that in addition to Justice Scalia likely writing Heller, Justice Alito is likely writing Davis v. FEC.

The Chief Justice has announced from the courtroom that the Court will issue all of its remaining opinions tomorrow at 10 a.m. Eastern.

To recap for those watching the Heller decision, it will definitely be decided tomorrow morning.

Tomorrow, the Court will issue its remaining three decisions: Heller (DC Guns), Davis v. FEC (campaign finance), and American Electric Power (energy contracts).

Clarification: while it appears that Justice Scalia has the principle [sic] opinion in the Guns case, it is not necessarily a majority opinion. It could be a plurality opinion.

What does that last one mean? (Gulp!)

UPDATE: HELLER AFFIRMED! (6/26/2008 10:12 EDT) Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. The vote is along idealogical lines, left and right.

Breaking News from the NRA:

NRA Wins Big in California State Court of Appeals

The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

“Today’s decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco,” declared Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation’s most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City’s mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.

“We promised our California NRA members in 2005 that we would fight any gun ban instituted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and we haven’t given up that fight,” continued Cox. “Today we see our second win for the Second Amendment against the San Francisco gun ban. We beat them once in court and the City’s attorney appealed based on his personal disagreement with the court’s first decision to overturn the ban. Now we’ve beaten them again. The California State Court of Appeals has upheld the state preemption law.”

Today’s decision came in the form of a 3-0 opinion in favor of the lower court ruling overturning the gun ban.

“This decision is a thoughtful and well-reasoned legal opinion,” concluded Cox. “I’d like to thank our approximately 4 million members, including the hundreds of thousands of members in California, for their continued commitment to protecting our cherished freedoms.”

Let’s hope that SCOTUS will follow suit in the D.C. Gun Case.

In an order denying a motion to lift the stay of mandate in the DC Gun Case, the DC Circuit Court uncovers a paradox in the arguments made by the District of Columbia.

It seems that DC’s claim that the handgun ban is constitutional by virtue of rifles and shotguns being legally owned in DC, fails the test of being actually available for self-defense given the fact that such legally-owned weapons must be stored locked or dissembled. In addition, the Circuit Court notes that rifles and shotguns may not be suitable for home defense due to the danger of bystanders being injured and that such weapons may be difficult or impossible for smaller persons to handle. Hand guns, however, are ideal in close quarters and easily handled by smaller persons.

Hopefully, the enlightenment provided by the DC Court will give guidance to SCOTUS when the matter is brought before them. Logically, the choice for home defense is a loaded hand gun.

Excerpts from DC Gun Case Blog and notes from the DC Circuit Court can be seen below the fold.

Continue reading » Self-Defense Paradox in DC Gun Case

Here’s some interesting stuff about the current litigation of the Washington D.C. Gun Case: Washington D.C.’s challenge to the recent Federal Court ruling that their gun ban is unconstitutional asserts that its gun ban is constitutional because:

1. It only applies to handguns
2. The Second Amendment only restrains the federal government, not states or local governments like D.C.
3. D.C.’s gun ban is reasonable because it has saved “thousands of lives.”

According to the DCGunCase blog, Bob Levy in Legal Times (PDF) makes the following observations about D.C.’s three claims:

1. Not only does the ban apply to handguns, but restrains rife and shotgun owners to disassemble or lock their unloaded firearms, thus rendering them virtually useless for self-defense. D.C.’s Mayor Fenty weakly makes the claim that these guns are suitable for home defense. One judge in the case observed that the city could have enacted a complete gun ban claiming that sabers were still legal.
2. D.C.’s claim that they are a “local” government and should be exempt from the second amendment fails because the Constitution expressly grants to Congress, not a state, plenary legislative power over all matters whatsoever in the nation’s capital. Because the Second Amendment indisputably applies to the federal government, it therefore applies to the District, a federal enclave.
3. Has the D.C. gun ban saved “thousands of lives?” Before the District banned handguns in 1976, its murder rate had been declining. But soon afterward, the rate climbed to the highest of all large U.S. cities. It also rose relative to nearby Maryland and Virginia, as well as relative to other cities with more than 500,000 people. During the 31-year life of the ban, with the exception of a few years during which the city’s murder rate ranked second or third, there have been more killings per capita in Washington, D.C., than in any other major city. The rate climbed as high as 81 murders per 100,000 inhabitants in 1991 - triple the pre-ban levels. As of 2005, the last year for which I have data, the murder rate was still 32 percent above the 1976 level.

We’re going to keep tuned in to the DCGunCase blog since any landmark decision by SCOTUS will affect gun ordinances everywhere.

. . . about Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, that is.

In April, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that the Environmental Pollution Agency must consider Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as an air pollutant!

Now, as you may know, the gas CO2, is critical to the growth of vegetation on our planet; plants ‘breathe CO2 and exhale oxygen’ as it were. Animals, including us, do exactly the opposite - breathe oxygen and exhale CO2. You know what happens when animals are deprived of oxygen, so you must have a clue what might happen to CO2-deprived vegetation.

The current editorial at CO2 Science addresses that scenario - that is, an actual scientific experiment that documents what happens when cucumbers are deprived of CO2 (The following has been excerpted from “Carbon Dioxide: A Vital Atmospheric Resource Under Siege“):

Continue reading » Cucumbers Know More than SCOTUS

Off to the Supreme Court for the Washington D.C. Gun Ban:

A federal appeals court May 8 denied a petition by D.C. officials to reconsider a March ruling that overturned the District`s 30-year-old gun ban. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 6-4 to deny the District`s request that the entire court review a previous ruling in which a three-judge panel found some of the District`s gun restrictions to be unconstitutional.

What I want to know is Why aren’t D.C. residents allowed to get guns now? Their gun-grabbing law has been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL! TWICE!

Update: These two articles discuss the next steps for D.C. and the effects on gun owners:

• Gun Rights: Won or Lost in the Courts
• Fenty, Firearms and Future

This just in from NRA-ILA

D.C. Circuit Court Hands Down Significant Victory for Individual Second Amendment Rights!

Friday, March 09, 2007

Fairfax, VA- The District of Columbia Circuit Court today affirmed that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an inherent, individual right to bear arms. Today’s ruling should have a positive impact on the current D.C. gun ban, the National Rifle Association is fighting to overcome.

The majority opinion of the court states, “[T]he phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.” The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows: The D.C. Circuit Court went further in upholding individual freedoms, rejecting the claim that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District because it is not a State.

The D.C. City Council is expected to appeal the ruling.

It’s going to be interesting to see how this one works it’s way up through the appeal process.