Justice Breyer on RKBA

Many thanks to Only Guns and Money for this video of Justice Breyer:

As John mentioned, “Justice Breyer was Bill Clinton’s gift to American jurisprudence.” I can never understand the man’s logic here, or on many things. So because the Second Amendment is of questionable scope, we ought to read it out of the Bill of Rights? The Courts have successfully defined the scope of every other amendment, and with the possible exception of the fourth, have somehow manages to set appropriate boundaries. And how does the right have any meaning if you can’t exercise it in the sanctity of your own home?

17 thoughts on “Justice Breyer on RKBA”

  1. Chris Wallace quotes Stephen Breyer’s book where he talks about “changing circumstances,” and then asks Breyer if he believes that he is acting more like a policy-maker than a judge because he feels this way. Breyer replies by flatly saying no.

    Talk about non-sequitur logic there. That would be like me saying that I believe in man-made global warming, but then denying that I believe automotive emissions are responsible for climate change.

  2. Funny thing is this … how does Breyer and his side square their arguments with the facts as they stand. They argued that the militia purpose was hugely important … now that the second amendment has been affirmed to protect an individual right … will they still continue to argue that the militia is hugely important?

    After all … the militia either is, or is not, important. They argued that it is. It would appear dishonest of them to say that now, given an individual rights ruling … the militia is wholly unimportant.

    This is their “gotcha” moment. I presume they hope it will just go away …

  3. “Get on the subway and go to Maryland” and get your ass arrested. Besides, the subway don’t go near anywhere in Maryland or Virgina that will rent you a gun, even with a bus transfer.

  4. Let me say what Breyer said, but using a slightly different issue.

    Don’t like Jim Crow laws? Well, get on the wagon and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don’t think, for anyone who really wants to have freedom.

    I cannot for the life of me understand why he cannot see the connection there.

  5. This one counts as a logical fail- i don’t see any logic in his argument. He basically just avoided the question. Not only that, but he did that in a condiscending manner- as if to say “how silly of you to even think there is any room to debate this issue” and that really pisses me off. Whether you are from the right or the left there is almost always room to debate an issue- anyone who comes up with an argument like breyer just did is being intellectually dishonest..

    That being said i’ve never been a fan of justice breyer- not because of his “liberal interpretation” of the constitution but for his lack of actually using it. Unlike other liberal judges- who interpret the constitution (right or wrong) and base their decisions ON THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, justice Breyer doesnt even use the constitution to make a constitutional arguement. Read some of his dissents- he at times will only quote from foreign law to make his arguments (i remember reading a dissent from one case written by him where his whole arguement was based off some legal interpretation of a law in spain)

    This is what makes him so dangerous- he decides american issues using foreign ideals. Its alright to use foreign ideals as an add on but that shouldnt be the foundation of your arguement. For all Scalia’s faults (and he does have many as a justice) atleast you formulates his opinions using an interpretation of the U.S. constitution and not what some justice in europe thinks

  6. Just another oath-breaking, black-robed, wanna-be tyrant. Maybe we will get lucky and he’ll choke on his own bile and ignorance.

  7. Man isn’t qualified to sit as city traffic court judge, much less on SCOTUS….

  8. Breyer sounds foolish because he starts with a conclusion and is trying to arrange the tea leaves to support it. As said elsewhere, it really doesn’t matter that Madison made 2A an indvidual right to “appease” anyone. He approved making it an individual right. So, Justice, your point is? You just admitted what the Founders did and you say they didn’t.

    The dissents in Heller were thin and in McDonnell facetious, applying Breyer-like “logic” with embarrassing intensity.

    Hang on for a while longer, though. Obama has done his bit to SCOTUS.

  9. Breyer must have studied history at the same College of Idiots where Paul Helmke and Dennis Henigan studied it.

  10. What a fool. He talks of history but he knows even less about history than he does the law.

  11. Gentlemen, Breyer is appalling! His cavalier attitude toward the authority of the Constitution is as treasonous as it gets.
    Sebastian, you have properly maintained that as long as there is an appeal to thae next election, peaceful change to evil government should be sought. But, hypthetically, if Obama gets to replace Scalia with another Breyer, and creates an unelected, unaccountable court of tyrants that can never be voted out of power, can the gloves come off and we repair to arms before they take those away forever? When I watched that video, I wanted to pick up my phone and order a bigger gun!
    Heaven help us!


  12. I am crossing my fingers and hoping Obama gets no more appointments. But needless to say I think getting rid of Obama in the 2012 election is critical for the future of the Second Amendment.

  13. Getting Obama out by 2012 is critical for the country! I hope it would be earlier, except that I can’t see impeachment happening between now and then, and I don’t want to wish death on a sitting president/vice-president pair.

    Hopefully, if something does happen to both Obama and Biden (double impeachment, perhaps, for a scandal that hasn’t been uncovered yet?) the next speaker will turn out ok as President. (I’m not familiar enough with who he is; I can’t even rememember his name–but I don’t have much confidence in Republicans right now anyway, so it probably doesn’t matter too much!)

  14. “Funny thing is this … how does Breyer and his side square their arguments with the facts as they stand. They argued that the militia purpose was hugely important … now that the second amendment has been affirmed to protect an individual right … will they still continue to argue that the militia is hugely important?”

    Even funnier is how his own dissent affirms the individual right. That is what was funny for me was watching him drag out the collective right argument which flies in the face of his own dissent which he wrote. Breyer is an embarrassment to jurisprudence. His entire interview was the most convoluted, muddled collection of thoughts outside of Obama talking about……anything. Fail!

Comments are closed.