Decius wrote:
The humanitarian law project case is intellectually challenging. I haven't found a clear conviction on the matter easy to grasp on to. I'd have to do way more thinking and reading than I have time for.

True, it's not as cut-and-dried as some issues, and it's interesting whenever the John Birch Society (The New American, linked above) and the New York Times both cry foul over the same decision. Still, as much as I despise terrorism and the support of same, I have to side with the minority opinion on this one. In any gray area, I'll always err on the side of freedom.

Decius wrote:
For the record - I think Breyer might have a point that the founders did not intend for a fundamental, individual right to own firearms.

Really? That's a difficult case to make.

Decius wrote:
I also think that if we get to the other side of this we'll end up amending the constitution. I think you can convince 75% of the people in the country to support some tweaks to the language once the legal system stops muddying the issue and upholding unconstitutional regulations.

Are you talking about the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or the entire Constitution? While it's possible (though unlikely) that the issue of individuals' rights to possess weapons might come down to a Constitutional amendment, I don't think that any language can be made plain enough to be interpretation-proof.

As far as I'm concerned, the members of the Supreme Court already have their minds made up on politically-charged cases (abortion, weapons, eminent domain, etc.), and they write (spin) their legal opinions in order to make their political views fit the Constitution. In major, controversial cases, the same justices predictably line up on the same sides, based on their respective ideologies. For the most part, our justices are reflections (perhaps "extensions" is a better word) of the very partisan politicians who appoint them, and judicial activism will always be a factor in that political environment.

Any changes we make to the Constitution will be ignored and/or intentionally misinterpreted, as is the current language. I think we need better people, not a better Constitution. More often than not, we don't hold our elected officials (or ourselves) to high enough standards.

RE: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide.