Divemedic offers the misguided fool a primer course on what the Constitution actually says, and how it’s supposed to work.
This past week saw a huge win for gun rights, in that SCOTUS struck down a part of the GCA that was added during the Clinton administration- making prohibited persons out of people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders. AWA over at GunFreeZone did an excellent post on the ruling, and I won’t attempt to recreate that here.
My opinion on these DV orders is that they are bullshit aimed at men in an attempt to give women another arrow in their lawfare quiver. About ten years ago, I was the subject of one of those orders. It was sought and granted without me even being present, with the initial order not even having my correct name on it, by a woman that I hadn’t even seen in months, and in that order she alleged that I did things in stalking her that were impossible because I was not even in the country when they were alleged to have happened.
David Letterman was once subject to a DV order that was obtained by a woman who lived thousands of miles away, after the woman alleged that they were in a secret affair and that Letterman was sending her secret messages using his top 10 lists as a code. Using accusations of domestic violence has become a common tactic for women who wish to win divorce and child custody cases, as well as angry girlfriends who wish to get back at former boyfriends. Men have no legal recourse against women who are proven to be lying.
The decision that is the subject of this post fixes some of that. That isn’t how the left, or apparently Brett Kavanaugh, sees it. Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, making the case that sometimes we have to weigh in on whether or not a law is a good idea.
That’s where he is wrong.
The Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “…unless you have a really good reason to do so.” The Supreme Court isn’t there to decide whether or not a law is a good idea. The court is there to decide whether or not a particular law comports with the Constitution. All of the authority of the government derives from the Constitution. Any power or authority that the government takes upon itself that is outside of that authority is nothing more than tyranny, an unconstitutional power grab that is based upon the principle of “might makes right” that flies in the face of the principles upon which the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” was built upon.
There are those who would try and make the case that there is some balancing act to be done, but that isn’t how our government is supposed to work. Thomas sees that. Scalia, although a pragmatic sort of man, saw that as well. Kavanaugh does not.
So it would seem. With “conservative” Justices like Kavanaugh and Roberts for (putative) friends, the Constitution will never want for enemies. Sadly, it ain’t as if it doesn’t have enough of those already.
Update! Just read it myself, and DM is right: the above-cited Gun Free Zone post is indeed well worth a look. The Salon one he also linked, on the other hand, is precisely the kind of intellectually-tortured, logic-pretzeling codswallop we’ve all come to expect from the hoplophobic Goosesteppin’ Left.
IOW’s learn a lesson and never listen to the Federalist Society, a faux conservative legal operation.
I understand that any R president that goes his own way on SCOTUS picks will get shot down in the senate, but get a couple allies there and make a lot of noise, expose the bastards intent upon the looting and theft of the country, the McConnell’s etc.