A Round-Up of McDonald Thoughts
At more than 200 pages, the opinion is taking a while for people to process. With that, we’re looking at quick thoughts by many top thinkers in the movement throughout the day. Here’s a peek at what some are saying as they read through it:
The majority decisively rejects Stevens’ argument for “incorporation, but a weaker version applies to the States.” Scalia’s concurrence stomps all over Stevens’ dissent. And, while not addressing standard of review, the Court repeatedly describes the right to bear arms as fundamental.
Justice Scalia’s concurrence is a strongly worded attack on Justice Stevens’ concurrence over matters of constitutional interpretation. So much for being nice to the guy on his last day at work. Those who love Scalia opinions will love this one. Those who don’t, well . . .
…it really is interesting how much emphasis the majority, and Justice Thomas’s concurrence, put on the racist roots of gun control. See this article and this one by Bob Cottrol and Ray Diamond for more background. And isn’t it interesting that this is happening on the same day the Senate’s last Klansman went to his reward? …
…personally, I’d like to note that a lot of “respectable†commentators were, just a few years ago, calling the individual-rights theory of the Second Amendment absurd, ridiculous, and something that only (probably paid) shills for the NRA would espouse. (I’m talking to you, Garry Wills and Robert Spitzer, among others). Yet it is impossible to read this opinion, and the Heller opinion, and conclude that the individual right is really just a “fraud†concocted by the NRA. So were those who were saying so until quite recently being dishonest, or merely inexcusably ignorant?
About the Scalia concurring opinion, blogger Sebastian:
My basic conclusion is that Scalia clearly did not believe the majority opinion savaged Justice Stevens enough, and he wanted to make sure his opinion is thoroughly skewered.
