Quote of the Day

There’s no doubt that measuring mechanical functionality and discerning historical fidelity have become critical components of the conversation. Yet, if left abstract, they can obscure the real human people by whom and for whom these laws were enacted.

This abstraction turned to subterfuge in the challengers’ briefing before the Supreme Court last month. The most galling part of their argument is the recurrent invocation of—and self-righteous cloaking of their argument in—the language of democracy. “The decision whether a type of arm is too dangerous for ordinary Americans to possess,” they wrote, “is one that the people are entitled to make, not one that courts are empowered to make for them.” They say this, to be clear, in a brief asking the judges of the Supreme Court to make the decision about what weapons can be possessed over the decision of voters. Because the lower courts upheld these laws, the challengers want the justices to tell the citizens of Connecticut, Chicago, and other jurisdictions like California and New York that they cannot make fundamental judgments about public peace and safety.

Later in the brief, the challengers again assert that “whether the danger posed by a particular type of firearm outweighs its utility for lawful purposes is a decision for the American people to make, and judges are not authorized to second-guess that decision.” Yet their precise argument depends upon judges second-guessing—indeed, overruling—the decision that millions of those American people made about these weapons.

Jacob D. Charles
September 16, 2016
We found the most galling argument of the upcoming Supreme Court term

Charles in not just some random “journalist” for Slate. He specializes in 2nd Amendment law. Both Grok and Copilot says essentially the same thing:

In short: he is a mid-career legal academic with elite credentials (Duke Law honors, two federal clerkships, Big Law practice), a specialized scholarly profile in firearms and Second Amendment law, and a regular presence in both law reviews and opinion journalism. The Slate/MSN article sits in that public-commentary lane rather than being a news-desk report.

What I find most galling is that he does not address the many SCOTUS opinions which are completely contrary to his whining. He is advocating interest balancing, which is explicitly forbidding in SCOTU interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Or as Copilot expresses it:

The article discusses the policy consequences of assault-weapon bans and the democratic legitimacy of those laws, but it gives relatively little attention to the Supreme Court’s repeated statements that judges are not supposed to resolve Second Amendment cases through interest balancing.

…

The article spends considerable space discussing why assault-weapon bans are good policy and why they enjoy democratic support. What it spends less time discussing is why those considerations remain legally relevant after Supreme Court precedent has repeatedly cautioned courts against deciding Second Amendment cases through judicial balancing of public-safety benefits against constitutional rights.

If he really believes legal decisions should ignore the U.S. Constitution when:

… their precise argument depends upon judges second-guessing—indeed, overruling—the decision that millions of those American people made about these weapons.

Then he should also support the formerly slave states which took issue with the 13th Amendment and passed numerous laws restricting the former slaves. The constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, took many legislative decisions off the table with majority support in certain states. You would think as an elite constitutional attorney he would know and respect that.

Perhaps I am too harsh in my speculation he is a hypocrite. For all I know he is a Democrat and does support those voting, social, educational, economic, and firearm restrictions for former slaves and their descendants passed by his Democrat cousins in earlier decades.