Bob Owens’s money is on “no.” I also think that is the safe bet. Trying to divine the purpose and meaning behind the Supreme Court’s moves is really not much more rigorous than tea leaf reading. But as I’ve said before, I don’t think Scalia and Thomas’s dissent in denying cert in Jackson was a good omen. Ian seems to have agreed with that assessment. I haven’t seen anything that changes my mind. The Jackson case would have just been reinforcing Heller. ItÂ would not have required the Court to do much in the way of blazing new trails in Second Amendment law. I took Scalia and Thomas’s dissent as desperate frustration that the Court was not only unwilling to take additional cases to further define the contours of the right, but was also unwilling to even defend Heller from the predations of the lower courts.
It’s quite possible that one of the Heller justices in the majority voted with the majority because he wasn’t willing to nullify the Second Amendment, but beyond that has little desire to see a lot of state and local gun laws overturned. This would fit the judicial minimalism philosophy of Justice Roberts. I’ve been amused by a lot of folks suggesting that Roberts is going liberal. I don’t think this is the case. Judicial minimalism or judicial restraint have generally been regarded as conservative philosophies rather than liberal ones. Also consider the President who appointed Roberts mostly had an interest in ensuring his “Global War on Terror” initiatives were upheld by the Court.Â Minimalism has been a good way for politicians who seek power to fool a lot of people into allowing them power under the banner of “conservatism,” with courts willing to strike down unconstitutional excesses being labeled “activist.” The American people have been played, but hopefully have started to catch on. We have to demand the next President appoint justices who are ready and willing to strike down unconstitutional laws, and enforce appropriate limits on governmental power.