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

"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.

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?"

A better bet would be South Park style animation.

/ Why am I imagining Scalia with Cartman's voice?

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.