search
top

Justice Ginsberg and the Second Amendment

Justice Ginsberg still believes in the militia theory of the Second Amendment, but I think it’s good she doesn’t feel any pressure to retire while Barack Obama is President. She believes the next President will be a Democrat anyway. It’s a gamble for the Heller dissent. If Ginsburg retired during Obama’s Administration, there’d be a strong likelihood she’d be replaced by another justice who would like to overturn the Heller decision and redact the Second Amendment right out of the Bill of Rights.

But I don’t really blame Justice Ginsburg for wanting to hang on. For one thing, she might be right about a Democrat winning in 2016. Conventional wisdom for Democrats in DC is that the Republicans are finished, and they need not worry about losing the White House again. I think that’s wildly optimistic on their part, but it’s a common belief. The other reason I don’t blame her is I’m not sure I’d want to retire either. What would you do all day? I’d find things to amuse myself, sure, but I’d imagine Justice Ginsburg’s work is far more interesting than anything one would typically find for amusement in retirement.

7 Responses to “Justice Ginsberg and the Second Amendment”

  1. Countertop says:

    In 2006, Republicans were predicting that for 100 years it would be impossible for Democrats to control the Senate (let alone the House). Ooops.

  2. Perhaps there will be a Democrat elected in 2016, but perhaps not. The Democrats delayed implementation of the most objectionable parts of the ACA to facilitate re-election of Obama, but they cannot do so for three more years: at some point the ACA rubber must hit the road, and the next Democrat candidate is going to have to deal with the fallout of a program that had zero Republican support.

    Here is hoping that the Republican Party can find their spine, let alone their balls, before 2016.

  3. Here is some of the fallout that I mentioned in the previous post:

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/10/06/4365331/insurance-premium-increases-shock.html#.UlL4GHNDsun

    Guns gun-rights are not important to many people, but everyone has a pocketbook, and when they take a hit in their pocketbook, they get angry, as California Governor Gray Davis found out all too well:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_recall_election,_2003

  4. corvus says:

    The GOP is its own worst enemy (and unhelpful to RKBA-lovers) with a lot of the actions of its members. The shutdown is a farce for many people, and the GOP loses credibility with middle-of-the-road (“swing”) voters with these petulant stand-offs. If the Republicans lose the House in 2014 — or even lose a few seats to moderates — the next hyped up call for gun control will be that much harder to resist.

    Right now it seems like the GOP is running a huge gamble that more swing voters in key districts are anti-Obamacare than are annoyed by the shutdown or other political controversies.

  5. Don says:

    Pat Buchanan on why the Republicans are toast: http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/10/requiem-for-a-grand-old-party/

    Pat is a moderate/liberal in my book, but he’s an astute observer of the political scene.

    With the odds that the Rethugs are going to nominate Christie or Jeb Bush in 2016, a lot of us will find something else to do come election day. Me? I’ll be looking for my missing socks.

    • Sebastian says:

      Pat Buchanan is a moderate/liberal? His speech at the Republican Convention during the 1994 election is one of the things that made me eventually depart from the Republican Party, only to change back in this past election to vote for a guy who never made it to the primary elections in Pennsylvania.

      • Roberta X says:

        Pat personifies — and lives down to — pretty much every ugly thing Republicans are accused of. He’s cost that party a lot of votes, mine among them.

top