Google Answers Logo
View Question
Q: Supreme Court emotions ( No Answer,   10 Comments )
Subject: Supreme Court emotions
Category: Relationships and Society > Government
Asked by: jaseaux-ga
List Price: $5.00
Posted: 08 Sep 2005 13:37 PDT
Expires: 08 Oct 2005 13:37 PDT
Question ID: 565778
Are Scalia and Thomas upset that they were not appointed to Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, and instead Roberts, a newbie, was

Based on the clear language of the Constitution, what was the worst
Supreme Court decision that has not yet been overturned, and will
Chief Justice Roberts be able to overturn it?
There is no answer at this time.

Subject: Re: Supreme Court emotions
From: denco-ga on 08 Sep 2005 14:08 PDT
As to the second part of your question, United States v. Miller, a decision
on the Second Amendment, is easily one of the worst decisions.

No, if John Roberts Jr. is appointed to the Supreme Court, he would not be
able to overturn it, even if the Supreme Court did operate as such, which
it doesn't.
Subject: Re: Supreme Court emotions
From: jaseaux-ga on 08 Sep 2005 18:05 PDT
Wait a minute...

they made the right call there.  How would you interpret that amendment?
Subject: Re: Supreme Court emotions
From: denco-ga on 08 Sep 2005 19:02 PDT
The beginning of the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, ..."

Clearly states one reason, but not all of the reasons, for the rest
of the amendment:

"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be

Note that the second part does not state anything such as "only
members of a Militia can keep and bear Arms" or "Congress can
regulate Arms" or "the right of the Militia to keep and bear
Arms" or any restrictions at all.  The meaning of the phrase "shall
not be infringed" is clear as well.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment is clear.  If it wasn't, why hasn't
Congress just outright outlawed civilian (read: the people) ownership
of arms?  Why didn't the Supreme Court, as part of that decision, go
ahead and restrict arms ownership to the "militia" at the time, if
that was the clear intent of the amendment?

Because it would be unconstitutional, and the Congress and the Supreme
Court knew that it would be unconstitutional.

At pure face value the decision is incorrect as well, as sawed off
shotguns have been used with great effectiveness in military and
resistance (read: militia) operations in several wars and conflicts.

The Supreme Court makes mistakes.  The ability to parse a relatively
simple English sentence was one of them.
Subject: Re: Supreme Court emotions
From: jaseaux-ga on 08 Sep 2005 23:11 PDT
Sometimes when they say "the people" they're talking about State's
rights, vs. Federal Law.  So maybe the Federal government can't
overrule the State government on gun laws.
Subject: Re: Supreme Court emotions
From: nelson-ga on 09 Sep 2005 01:24 PDT
The founding fathers certainly lacked foresight when they came up with
the second amendment.
Subject: Re: Supreme Court emotions
From: housedev-ga on 09 Sep 2005 10:46 PDT
As to your first question, it would be hard to speculate on the
emotions of existing justices.  However, Rehnquist was only the 5th of
16 Chief Justices to be elevated from the bench.  Bringing in an
outsider as Chief Justice is historically common.
Subject: Re: Supreme Court emotions
From: justaskscott-ga on 09 Sep 2005 14:21 PDT
Here is the ABA's view on Unites States v. Miller and the Second Amedment:

"Second Amendment Issues"
American Bar Association

Of course, there are many more opinions about Miller, some positive,
and some negative like denco's.
Subject: Re: Supreme Court emotions
From: denco-ga on 09 Sep 2005 14:52 PDT
For am in depth analysis on "United States v. Miller," there is this
paper that originated in the "Cumberland Law Review."

Subject: Re: Supreme Court emotions
From: jaseaux-ga on 09 Sep 2005 18:57 PDT
So I guess everybody thinks Roe v. Wade was okay?
Subject: Re: Supreme Court emotions
From: conwatch1-ga on 01 Oct 2005 16:08 PDT
The Miller decision was actually a model of judicial restraint.  It
did not pronounce on the issue of collective versus individual right. 
It merely said that a sawed-off shotgun either wasn't a militia
weapon, or should be determined by further proceedings at the district
level  --  on that question it is ambiguous.

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  

Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy