FIVE to FOUR: Appointed For LIFE

FIVE TO FOUR:

In a landmark ruling Thursday, the Heller decision:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Individual Americans have a right to own guns, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday for the first time in the country's history, striking down a strict gun control law in the U.S. capital.

However, considering the 5 to 4 ruling on this, it's truly frightening to think that four justices even would question the simple sentence in the Second Amendment that reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

One good aspect, I should truthfully write, is that the Supreme Court (at least in this case) didn't attempt to rewrite our Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama said: "I have no intention of taking of taking away peoples' guns," but supported the DC gun ban, finding it Constitutional. And Constitutional law is allegedly his scholarly specialty. Now, today, Barack Hussein Obama says today's ruling is essentially NBD.

Who formed the majority? Scalia (who wrote the decision), Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy.

Dissenting were Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Imagine that.

I'm quite disappointed that the DC Metro Police Chief Cathy Lanier disagrees with the ruling, but I make this judgment not in a closet. As a law enforcement officer I know she has to do her job. Gun violence is nasty in DC, that's a given. But taking away national rights so she can mark down her homicide board is no solution. Her jurisdiction is no different than mine. Gun violence occurs. But here's the difference: if witnesses refuse to stand up, refuse to testify, refuse to make themselves known then that's a localized problem. And in DC that's a black problem. And those communities, those people, need to lay down in the bed of their own making. OFW. Right or not, racist or not, that's simply the truth.

Further, let's continue to do what I call the Logical Extension, and that is this: in an area where there is precipitously more gun violence than most any other spot in the nation, and in consideration of the fact that violence is generally trending down in the nation according to FBI statistics, what does that tend to indicate in terms of gun ownership and protection?

I submit this: DC Police Chief Lanier isn't doing her job or, at worst, is prohibited up to now from doing her job and allowing lawful citizens to do theirs.

But trust me: the fight isn't over. Channel chatter indicates certain elements are building the arguments to go after any semi-automatic weapon, handgun or long gun.

FIVE TO FOUR:

Consensus, however, now apparently runs a good portion of the court, not legal precedent. In another ruling, SCOTUS on Wednesday outlawed executions of people convicted of raping a child. In a 5-4 vote (Liberal jurists concur, Conservative Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia dissenting), the court said the Louisiana law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in such cases violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment as published in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 07-343.

In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote:

But Kennedy said the absence of any executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."

My point: SCOTUS deciding by a national trend rather than on precedent? What is this? Equaling "No Child Rapist Left Behind?"

FIVE TO FOUR:

The prior vote on Guantanamo provides greater rights to terrorists than our own soldiers. Again, 5 Liberals concur, 4 Conservatives (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito) dissent. I wrote about the decision here and here.

Oh. And SCOTUS is "off" now until October 6th.

In The Next Four Years:

The stakes in this election are simply too high. In the next presidential term, the office-holder will have the opportunity to select, at minimum, at least two and possibly three SCOTUS appointments. It is a given that whomever Barack Hussein Obama selects will sail through the Demorat-controlled Congress. What kind of persons do you think they will be?

With McCain, he has indicated an interest in appointing Strict Constructionists to SCOTUS.

In my opinion, a vote for anyone other than McCain equates to a guaranteed Barack Hussein Obama presidency. And that result, despite our hesitations and problems with McCain, is simply unacceptable. You stay home, you get Obama. You vote for anyone other than McCain, then you've thrown away your vote and you get Obama. This is precisely what Barack Hussein Obama and the Left wants.

As I have written time and again, whomever controls SCOTUS and education controls the nation and its future. Kennedy is obviously the swing vote. Breyer and Ginsburg are next to retire.

So just how important do you think control of SCOTUS is to the agenda of the Left?

BZ