Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage may pave way for expanded gun rights.

Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage may pave way for expanded gun rights.:
(June 27, 2015)

With the high court’s latest ruling on same-sex marriages, some contend the decision could lead to increased gun rights, specifically national CCW reciprocity, by using the same argument. Friday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize those sanctioned by other states. “No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the landmark decision that arguably made same sex marriage a reality in the 13 remaining states that continued to ban the practice.

With all due respect for those who do not agree with this decision, I do not understand what the controversy is all about.

This is a Freedom ruling; it allows everyone to determine their own preferences, and live under the same rules for Homosexuals as are accorded to Heterosexuals.

I acknowledge that some people consider that this undermines the sanctity of marriage.  I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution, which generally acknowledges rights, rather than establishing limitations on The People (which is NOT the purpose of the Constitution!)   I've heard the expression "Sanctity of Marriage".  Is this something which must be 'protected'?  Or is it something which speaks for itself?

So, why should I care if homosexuals marry?   You don't agree with me?  First Amendment Protection .. rail away, I 'get' to say this because I CAN.  (Of course, you can be vehement in your disagreement; it's your right, too.)

 With similar logic applied, gun rights advocates argue that the nation’s patchwork of firearms laws governing the concealed carry of handguns are now circumspect under the same guidelines. In short, they reason if marriage equality is guaranteed from state to state, then so should concealed carry rights.

(emphasis added)

Black Robes, Red Faces

Seized property sits vacant nine years after landmark Kelo eminent domain case | Fox News:

The controversial Supreme Court ruling that expanded eminent domain to give government the right to take private property to allow economic development may have been all for nothing, according to a report. 

Nine years after the high court sided with a Connecticut municipality in Kelo v. City of New London, a ruling Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has likened to the court's disastrous Dred Scott decision, the 90-acre plot once earmarked for office buildings, luxury apartments and a new marina, remains vacant. 

Seven residents who fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep their working-class homes in the city's Fort Trumbull section have only their memories and whatever remains of the money they were forced to accept.

 We commented about this back in 2005 (can't find the link, sorry) when we thought that the Fifth Amendment might possibly apply.   Yes, we agreed with the minority opinion of Judge Scalia.  Sure, we said at the time, "Eminent Domain" allows The State to condemn property which stands in the way of --- say --- an Interstate Freeway; but "luxury apartments"?   The point was, this was not a "Depressed Area" (read: "slum").  It was a pleasant residential neighborhood, and some of the residents were second or third generation owners of the same private residence.

Today, we learn that these people were moved out of their homes for nothing.  Or, in the cited case of Lead Plaintiff Suzette Kelo, they liked their homes so much that they opted to use the (inadequate) compensation paid them to move their houses to another neighborhood.

The Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) is one of the three 'legs' of the "Balance of Powers" under the U.S. Constitution.  Unfortunately, it is staffed by fallible humans,  as are the Legislative and Executive branches.  As such they are subject making terrible decisions, which will come back to embarass them in years to come.

Today, it's the Judicial Branch wearing red faces to compliment their Black robes.

Sucks to be them, today.

Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns - NYTimes.com

Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns - NYTimes.com:
 December 31, 2013

WASHINGTON — Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Obama administration from forcing some religious-affiliated groups to provide health insurance coverage of birth control or face penalties as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Acting at the request of an order of nuns in Colorado, Justice Sotomayor issued the stay just hours before the requirement was to go into effect on New Year’s Day. She gave the Obama administration until Friday to respond to the Supreme Court.  

Although this injunction stay was initiated directly on behalf of specific orders of Catholic nuns, it wouldn't take much imagination to expect it would ... or should ... also be applicable to other groups who believe that portion of the Affordable Care Act (AKA "ObamaCare") should not be imposed upon them.  Examples include unmarried men, gays, Catholic nuns, and any other group which has reason to expect they should not be expected to be responsible for a pregnancy.

Which, to some of us (including widowed near-septuagenarians  such as myself) seems only reasonable.

Unfortunately, this issue may become something of a "Tipping Point" for ObamaCare.

If it is either legally or morally inappropriate for the Federal government to impose birth control insurance premiums on individuals who don't expect to face that health-care situation,  then why would it be appropriate for the Federal government to impose ANY insurance clauses on ANYONE who objects to them?

As is true in almost any civic law that the Supreme Court (or any of its individual Justices) take an interest, this is an "800 pound Gorilla In The Corner" which may react dramatically to ensuing events.  If the ObamaAdministration ... no, let's be honest about this ... if President Obama personally fights this action, it may lead to the entire ObamaCare law being opposed by the Supreme Court on more than one ground.

Note that previous challenges on the basis of constitutionality have already been successfully met and overwhelmed.  Specifically, the requirement that private individuals MUST adhere to federally mandated insurance mandates has been accepted because this socially tumultuous law has been designated by the White House and Congress as a "tax".  And Congress is constitutionally empowered to impose taxes on American citizens.

Now, however, we see that the law might be interpreted by the Supreme Court as violating the First Amendment of the Constitution ...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

If Obama opposes Justice Sonia Sotomayor on this issue, that will open the door for opposition to the enforcement of ObamaCare by the Supreme Court, which has the power to declare the entire multi-hundred page law unconstitutional (and therefore unenforceable) until the question is resolved.  That is, resolved to the satisfaction of The Court.

ObamaCare has been walking on little cat feet, like a San Francisco fog, for months.  Now the Administration faces a challenge which it cannot win.  This is the strength of the American Constitution. The tripartite nature of American government ... legislative, judicial and executive branches ... have the constitutional power to stymie each other on the basis of legality and constitutionality.  While they have been careful avoid exciting the other two branches in recent years, Obama has for the past several months been striding boldly into areas where no-one has gone before.

This time, Obama may have tripped over his dictatorial tendencies.

It is the designated duty of both Congress and The Supreme Court to oppose the Executive branch when that portion of government seems to have exceeded its constitutional powers.  Congress has neither the will nor the intestinal fortitude to oppose Obama's end-run on the right of The People to decide for themselves what level of health insurance they can afford.

Like the Second Amendment, it's not about the mechanics.  It's about the Rights of The People.

When the Federal government stoops to using taxes not to finance The Common Good but to impose The Common Good ... and makes us pay through the nose for the privilege of being Governed ... then there's something wrong with this system.

Not the Carrot, but the Whip.

This guy has lost all perspective.  It's time that someone said "Hey, wait a minute!"

Thank you for stepping up to the plate, Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Sotomayor Ducks Questions About Gun Rights

Sotomayor Ducks Questions About Gun Rights - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor refused on Wednesday to elaborate on her views about firearms regulations and the Second Amendment, saying she would "make no prejudgments" about future firearms-related cases.

President Obama's first nominee to the high court did say that she believed Americans do not currently enjoy a fundamental right to bear arms, which echoes her two previous rulings on the topic as an appeals court judge.

I commented previously about Sotomayor's candidacy to SCOTUS, and I admit it was not supportive. In that article, I also focused on her responses to questions about her support for the Second Amendment as acknowledging an 'individual right', and perhaps suggested that her support was tepid at best, reminiscence of a Cracker asserting that "some of my best friends are N ... uh ... Black People".

Today, the news reports describe her absolute inability (or unwillingness) to comment on the Second Amendment as an Individual Right.

Because Sotomayor has not clarified her position on gun rights, and has declined repeated invitations to do so during this week's Senate hearing, advocacy groups have turned to her written opinions and the president's own record on firearm regulation. (This parallels the abortion question: While Sotomayor parried those questions on Wednesday, the White House had previously reassured liberal groups that she would be a staunch pro-choice vote on the court.)

I have nobly managed not to address her decision on the RICCI case, and in truth I'm not willing to initiate a barrage attack on Sotomeyer's candidacy. I don't like the Ricci decision, I don't agree with it, but here ... it is a digression.

What most concerns me is that a candidate for the Supreme Court of The United States, one who has previously and historicallyl based her decisions on "precedence", is unwilling or unable to cite "precedence" as recent as the past calendar year.

Speaking openly, I don't feel much inclined to argue that a SCOTUS candidate who offers "I don't know, it depends on the case" is ipso facto unqualified for acceptance. Our last two SCOTUS nominees, those who somehow made it past the Senate Selection Committee, often felt obliged to respond in much the same way.

Consider this:

Existing Supreme Court decisions indicate the Second Amendment only limits "the actions the federal government could take with respect to the possession of firearms" and can't be used to strike down broad state laws, Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

This is all well and good (it says here), but this is not a nebulous issue which decision must be finessed by reading between the lines, such as Roe v Wade.

This is an issue which has been very carefully defined by the recent Heller decision, and for a SCOTUS candidate who professes to take into account 'precedents', one wonders why an interpretation of the law, for which precedents exist, has so much trouble answering simple questions.

To illustrate, read the transcript at the end of the article which offers a dialogue between Sotomayor and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK):

COBURN: Do I have a right to personal self-defense?

SOTOMAYOR: I'm trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one.

SOTOMAYOR: Generally, as I understand, most criminal law statutes are passed by states. And I'm also trying to think if there's any federal law that includes a self-defense provision or not. I just can't...

COBURN: But do you have an opinion, or can you give me your opinion, of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self-defense?

SOTOMAYOR: I -- as I said, I don't know.

COBURN: I'm talking about your...

SOTOMAYOR: I don't know if that legal question has been ever presented.

COBURN: I wasn't asking about the legal question. I'm asking about your personal opinion.

SOTOMAYOR: But that is sort of an abstract question with no particular meaning to me outside of...

COBURN: Well, I think that's what American people want to hear, Your Honor, is they want to know. Do they have a right to personal self-defense?...

Those are the kind of things people would like for us to answer and would like to know, not how you would rule or what you're going to rule, but -- and specifically what you think about, but just yes or no. Do we have that right?

SOTOMAYOR: I know it's difficult to deal with someone as a -- like a judge who's so sort of -- whose thinking is so cornered by law.

[Ed: emphasis added.]

There is more detail available in the original article, and you may be justified in thinking I have
"cherry-picked" the quotations. So go read the whole thing, and maybe it will help you to make up your own mind about Sotomayor's candidacy for the Supreme Court of The United States.

Personally, I don't have much faith in a SCOTUS candidate who professes to be "cornered by the law".

I never thought that Supreme Court judges could be 'cornored by the law'. I always though that they interpreted the law. If they feel 'cornored by the law', are they really the best candidates for the job?