ROFLCOPTERZ

It seems to me, (from reading the oral arguments) that the sole reason for not using privileges and immunities, is that it would also open the door to civil juries, and grand jury indictments.

If that were the case, would they then be opening the door to millions of convictions being overturned, as they were tried unconstitutionally?

They kept coming back to, if we use P&I for 2A, how do we get around the trial by jury thing?

In other words, we’ll win, but with an interpretation that’s halfway between what it really means and what Justice Scalia wants it to say.

[...] make sure you check out Laurel’s lol-speakage interpretation. 2010-03-03 08:21 by Standard Mischief, Filed under:deranged rants   No Comments [...]

[...] Laurel at Politics, Guns and Beer has an ‘interesting’ take on the oral arguments from y… [...]

[...] Summary of McDonald: GURA: But you hate due process SCALIA: I LIKE IT NOW [...]

I think Scalia sometimes will come across in oral arguments as extremely hostile to something he actually supports, maybe to bring out points he can use with the other justices when they’re discussing the case later. (I could be wrong, though – he is pretty much an ass, so he might just enjoy watching the attorneys squirm.)

SCALIA: SERIOUSLY STFU IF WE [ALLOW THIS] THESE FUCKOS WILL LEGITIMIZE EVERYTHING STFU STFU STFU

That was pretty much his entire dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, too.

Good translation from legalese. I think it will take another lawsuit to finish this. It will have to be one based on a states abuse of what they are not going to finish here.

This has the entire daytime TV lineup–Judge Joe Brown, Judge Judy, Jerry Springer and the mid-day news. If only there was a reenactment show like this! Hi-larious–lol the whole time

Glad I wasn’t drinking anything, I’d need a new computer.

[...] Caleb at Gun Nuts Media points to an hilarious summary of McDonald vs. Chicago.  Warning, contains some adult language. 0.000000 [...]

Hilarious!!!!

I can’t get behind the idea that, if something’s bad, just because it’s been bad for 140 years we should perpetuate it.

That’s exactly what I thought when Heller was handed down and all the lefties started hyperventilating because the Heller majority supposedly didn’t respect precedent. One wonders what they’d have said after Brown v. Board of Education was handed down.

[...] apart from crafting up a few disturbing mental images, Laurel wins the internet for her simply outstanding (if somewhat irreverant) parody of the events of yesterday. She wraps it [...]

Pure genius. Thanks for writing it.

Hilarious and genius! (And this is my first visit to your blog. Just read your bio. You are too good to be true!)

Seriously, given the current state of the nation, we may not be ready for P&I. If they had to go this route, it could open Pandora’s Box on a number of things that we may not be ready to deal with.

Granted, it’s probably the way the Founding Fathers would have wanted things to go, and it would be more in keeping with their ideas of liberty, but the Class 5 Hurricane Force Fecal Typhoon it could cause might result in massive social upheaval in a society that has been increasingly cowed and coddled for the last 60-100 years.

Incremental change may be preferable at the moment. Still, Kudos for Gura.

[...] Heh. [...]

[...] Comments damnum absque injuria » Best. Summary. Of. Oral. Arguments. Ever. on My summary of the oral arguments:Grey on My summary of the oral arguments:Paul on My summary of the oral arguments:Davidwhitewolf on [...]

Outstanding!

[...] fantastic abbreviated version of the McDonald argument mentioned yesterday has now been illustrated. My [...]

[...] This is the best summary of the McDonald transcript EVER. If you haven’t already seen it linked from other gun blogs, go read it. [...]

[...] With beverage alert in effect, here’s a great summary of the oral arguments [...]

You obviously need to know about xtranormal.com:
http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2009/08/text-to-movies/

Even better than a comic-book, this can so easily be an animated film…

Yeah, Xtranormal.com wouldn’t let you use enough characters to animate this; the free version only lets you use 2 characters, and I think with Xtranormal State you can have up to three, but I don’t think you could do a whole crowd scene like this.

Incoporating by the “P & I” clause means the words “shall not be infringed” come along with it. Incorporating by “due process” means the states or cities can use due process to kill any practical effect incorporation may have.
It’s really simple and the court is going for another Heller.
I am opposed to the use of the 14th amendment, Hell, I’m opposed to the amendment. The rest of the constitution is crystal clear, and every state had to agree to abide by it to become a state. The 14th says “you gotta do watchya said ya wud do, but if ya don’t, hey, we got nothin’. anyway we may not like some parts of liberty under the rest of the constitution so, we’ll use the 14th like a chinese restuarant menu.”
It’s a pretty sorry state of affairs when reliance on a subsequent amendment is required to honor the original plain as day “shall not be infringed” amendmnent. Yeah I know we should feel fortunate that we are getting a second bite of the apple. And I would, if I didn’t recognize the fact that like the Heller decision, this one too is subject to be only correct enough to forestall armed insurrection without really dismantling any of those prohibited infringements.

Infringements from which we had already been indemnified by the second amendment that was part and parcel of the original document. The original document which every state was compelled to honor as regards the rights of citizens anywhere and everywhere in the United States. Look it up.
Sorry, I can’t get too excited that much will change. I remember the road map provided to abusers in Heller. I also remember Kelo. I am not inclined to place much trust in people who can arrive at either decision.
The justices asked one question repeatedly of Gura and Clement and both missed their opportunity to clarify the issue.
The question in various forms regarded whether a right incorporated against the states had to be incorporated in its entirety or would piecemeal and/or altered versions of those rights (meaning restricted) be justified.
Both attorneys missed the answer. Of course, every time Gura tried to answer some black-robed nancy boy interrupted him. However, the response should have been simple. Incorporation had to be complete and identical to the federal right as laid out in the constitution because to incorporate the 2nd amendment means the words “shall not be infringed” must also be incorporated. Anything else is a defacto amendment to the constitution requiring a constitutional convention and very high requirements for ratification.
Secondly the court is determined to maintain the myth of infallibility even if they must endorse bad law (Slaughterhouse) using the stupid excuse that “It has been wrong for 140 years and has become sacred”.
**************************************************************************************

Ok, I have posted the above in a lot of places, but since I have never seen your site before and you obviously don’t know me from a three-peck**** billy goat. I will add that I thought Heller was as close to a defeat as gun rights advocates were likely to see in any decision that would not cause armed insurrection. In my opinion it was a road map showing the way localities could use “due process” and “reasonable restrictions” to negate any substantive effects of the decision regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms. That is why I think “due process” will be used to decide McDonald in favor of McDonald, but have no more real impact on the actual exercise of the right than Heller has had in D.C.

By the way, young lady, I like your style.

[...] Classic. GURA: Scalia! An argument for incorporating under privileges and immunities, YOU CAN HAS! SCALIA: WTF are you talking about? We can incorporate it under due process. I hate due process and I even think that. GURA: Uhhh SCALIA: Are you trying to get a job at a law school? GURA: Oh shit SCALIA: SERIOUSLY STFU IF WE USE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES THESE FUCKOS WILL LEGITIMIZE EVERYTHING STFU STFU STFU GURA: But you hate due process SCALIA: I LIKE IT NOW [...]

P.S. I want to give a shout-out to Gura, who I didn’t really give proper credit in the summary. I do think he did a good job, I just think he was a little taken aback by Scalia coming out swinging on privileges/immunities – as was I.

To be perfectly honest, I lost a little bit of Scalia love today. I can’t get behind the idea that, if something’s bad, just because it’s been bad for 140 years we should perpetuate it.

Wasn’t Scalia (who is often good, but occasionally maketh one to scratch one’s head) the one who called himself a “fair-weather federalist?”

Winner! I was hoping to see your take on Gura’s fisking of Sotomayor…

Very funny stuff. This has made its way to several lawyers who filed briefs on the good guys’ side in McDonald — perhaps quite a few more.

“Incoporating by the ‘P & I’ clause means the words ’shall not be infringed’ come along with it. Incorporating by ‘due process’ means the states or cities can use due process to kill any practical effect incorporation may have.”

You do not grasp the concept of substantive due process. Which would be perfectly excusable (”substantive due process” is something of a legal oxymoron, after all, and certainly not an intuitive concept), if you weren’t so boldly holding forth on the subject. You can be certain that the incorporated right won’t be absolute, just as no other provision of the Bill of Rights has been interpreted to be absolute. But that’s not because of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. State action that does not afford an individual sufficient procedural due process is invalid because it violates 14th Amendment due — that’s the procedural aspect of due process. But that does not mean that states may do anything they like as long as they provide sufficient procedural process. The the point of substantive due process is precisely that some rights are so fundamental that a state simply may not interfere with them (beyond the bounds that the Supremes have set) — no matter how much procedural process the state provides.

By the way, have you ever read Barron v. Baltimore? You should check it out. It might clarify some things.

“I wrote (name of case), fucknuts”.

I suspect that will be heard around the back halls of the SC for a long time.

[...] lighten the mood, and play you out with music, Laurel’s take on the McDonald case.  Please secure your [...]