The SCOTUS will rule on Heller tomorrow. Blogs think Scalia is the author for majority. Anyone planning a special cigar to celebrate a victory?

Justice Scalia will almost certainly be writing the decision. But I'll reserve opinion on this until the decision is released. Given the splits on the Court, it's likely Scalia's opinion will control a plurality of the Court, only. Someone like Justice Kennedy is not likely to join a Scalia opinion on an issue like the 2d Amendment in full, and so he will probably agree with the Court's conclusion, but not give his vote to the full reasoning.

Regardless, if things go in favor of individuals' rights, a celebratory cigar will be in order.

quote:

Regardless, if things go in favor of individuals' rights, a celebratory cigar will be in order.

Here here! We have swung WAY too far in the wrong direction already. Disclaimer: I will likely have a cigar anyway, celebratory or not.

The Supreme Court's own blog will cover the decisions "live" tomorrow.

Well, they are not off to a good start with this decision. It is my opinion that child rapists are comitting a form of murder.

Justice Kennedy has been a major disappointment to conservatives. He really pulled the wool over Regean's eyes.

Kennedy is going to control this issue...

Who knows where it will go...I'm w/ you, Law10...I see 4+4+1 and a mountain of state legislation and litigation to follow...

jag

EDIT: KKL, there's that decision (which I thought the Court would defer to states judgement as opposed to a bright-line prohibition)... and the detainee decision that seemed out of place...and I suspected the Exxon punitive damages case would stand, but the court wiped out the $2.3 billion verdict and said that only a 1-1 ration w/ the compensatroy damages is available in maritime law...that's an odd decision...

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
The Supreme Court's own blog will cover the decisions "live" tomorrow.

SCOTUSblog is a fabulous resource. They have some of the best commentary around and link to some great sites.

Jack, a minor point, but I thought you'd like to know: SCOTUSblog is not affiliated with the Supreme Court in any official capacity. It is, instead, run by a law firm that has an extensive appellate practice. I thought when you said "Supreme Court's own blog" that you might have stumbled upon some hidden gem of a website.

Edit: Jag, you're right to say that no one really knows where this is going. A poll of readers on SCOTUSblog overwhelmingly showed that the expectation is for Heller to prevail (90% said DC law overturned, 4% upheld, and 6% case sent back for trial). The extent of the rights will remain to be seen.

In any event, the decision will be fun to read and will certainly generate lots of discussion.

quote:

I thought when you said "Supreme Court's own blog" that you might have stumbled upon some hidden gem of a website.

Jeez, I was fooled -- I did think it was official. Now I see the "brought to you by" text.

quote:

Originally posted by lawstudent10:
(90% said DC law overturned, 4% upheld, and 6% case sent back for trial). The extent of the rights will remain to be seen.

The "why" is the fun part here...if they define a level of scrutiny for gun-regs...nothing will be safe...there will be cases to challenge every possible threshold...I wish I was a term away from graduation instead of a year and a term...somebody is going to retire off this litigation...

jag

quote:

if they define a level of scrutiny for gun-regs

There was plenty of discussion at oral argument about reasonable restrictions on gun ownership -- types of bullets, rate of fire, form of the stock, &c. You and I discussed earlier this month the likely outcome here, and I believe we both concluded the Court will fashion something just short of strict scrutiny in evaluating these issues. That said, nothing is predictable, and given the propensity of Kennedy to surprise us all, I'll wait to comment further until I've had a chance to review the opinion tomorrow.

So the 8th amendment keeps us from killing this SOB because we'd be using cruel and unusual punishment. What did he do to this girl? Not only would I label it cruel and unusual, but I would also tag it other unfortunant adjectives also. He raped her to the point of internal bleeding. I don't understand how people in this nation can go to sleep at night, all the while cheering him on! The scum shoudln't be allow to live. He's an animal at this point. If my dog bit someone unwarrented, I'd put him down. Same rule applies here. The answer is that easy. Put him down.

Cheering him on?

quote:

Originally posted by KKL:
Well, they are not off to a good start with this decision. It is my opinion that child rapists are comitting a form of murder.

Justice Kennedy has been a major disappointment to conservatives. He really pulled the wool over Regean's eyes.

+1. Rape is a form of murder, especially to a child. The child will never see things the same way again. Then there are scumbags like this one in Mass.-

http://www.myfoxboston.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jses...&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1

Cheering him on, as in fighting for his "rights". He should have no rights at this point. They are fighting for a life that has no business now being here on earth. It's like looking at the girl, or future girls, and saying, "Hey what happened to you was bad, but he didn't kill you so just be glad you're alive." It doesn't make any sence to me how decent people can fight for scum like him...

quote:

Then there are scumbags like this one in Mass.-

Fagan certainly stirred things up around here. To put this in context for those who don't know, Massachusetts is debating its own version of "Jessica's Law" that would set mandatory penalties for convicted sex offenders. James Fagan is a state rep and defense attorney whose State House speech described the lengths he'd go to as defense attorney to defend his client, even if it means taking apart a child on the witness stand. No one around here thinks he didn't go way too far.

If you could prove with 100% certainty, then I might agree with putting these criminals down.

BUT, the problem is that proving child molestation and rape is historically a very sketchy science. People are far too willing to believe the testimony of children...and children are easily led by the questioners.

If this law was in effect in the 80's, the defendants in the McMartin preschool trial would have had their lives on the line.

Unfortunately, the sad reality is that children make extremely poor witnesses. And when it comes to children, people are willing to fly off the handle and act, and the consequences are that an innocent life can be taken.

Here is a guy who took the law into his own hands and murdered the guy who allegedly molested his daughter. Edington
Well before it was determined that the neighbor was innocent, people were cheering this guy for defending his family. With that kind of overwhelming "assumed guilty" public opinion, it makes you wonder how often trials are really fair.

quote:

So the 8th amendment keeps us from killing this SOB because we'd be using cruel and unusual punishment.

even if we dont kill him, i can almost guarantee that one of his fellow prisoners does, from what ive heard, they hate child molesters in the joint. id bet getting shanked/beaten to death probably hurts worse then anything we'd legally be allowed to do.

quote:

even if we dont kill him, i can almost guarantee that one of his fellow prisoners does, from what ive heard, they hate child molesters in the joint.

Although I agree with your assessment, and would have liked to see this guy on death row, I don't think jail house justice is something we should rely on, as a society, to achieve what could not be accomplished in the courts and under law.

I'm still reviewing the Court's decision, but it seems to rely heavily on the notion that evolving standards of decency and mores prohibit capital punishment under the 8th Amend. I've always been hesitant to rely on that type of logic -- but it does beg the question, if evolving standards of decency prohibit capital punishment in this case, do those ambiguous and arguable standards prohibit putting an individual such as the rapist in this case, in prison where he will almost certainly be the recipient of treatment you acknowledge is likely far more severe than what our laws allow?

Ok, so this thread got a little off topic, but on the new topic of death sentences for child rape...While the decision is terrible, the idea of a death sentence for child rapists could have the unintended consequence of the rape victims being killed by the rapist to help cover up the crime due in part to no additional punishment for the added crime of murder.

Can't wait until the morning so I can find out how 9 freeking lawyers in robes decide what my rights are.

quote:

Originally posted by bamawrx:
Ok, so this thread got a little off topic, but on the new topic of death sentences for child rape...While the decision is terrible, the idea of a death sentence for child rapists could have the unintended consequence of the rape victims being killed by the rapist to help cover up the crime due in part to no additional punishment for the added crime of murder.

Can't wait until the morning so I can find out how 9 freeking lawyers in robes decide what my rights are.

bama...the decision did not include instances where the victim was also killed...rape and killing still can be punished with the death penalty...just not rape alone...

Tomorrow should be an interesting day...

jag