Taken from Simple Justice

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/06/24/the-problem-with-scotus.aspx

and

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/06/26/the-heller-decision-a-massive-disappointment-for-all.aspx

The Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbitrator of constitutionality. It's purpose is to provide the courts of our nation, and hence the people of our nation, with clear guidance as to what the law is. The Supreme Court has failed to do so.

It's like a tease, taking cases and leading us on to believe that we will finally get some answers to questions that plague the courts. And then, a bunch of words that may (or may not) resolve one question, but leaves us with a bunch of new questions to flesh out the rule. In other words, we are no better off after the case is decided then we were before.

Of particular concern is the game being played where the court expressly refuses to determine some critical aspect of an issue, whether under the guise that it is not before them, or the record is inadequate, or "it need not be decided" for lack of a better excuse. These are extraordinarily smart people, and they have incredibly smart people supporting them. They know that their decision fails to serve any real purpose unless it covers the issue in its entirety, addresses the new questions that arise from their answer to the old question. They know what it means to provide meaningful guidance. And still, they refuse to do it.

Rothgery was a disaster of a decision. Not because of how it came out, but because it was so lacking in clarity, and so limited in scope, that it accomplishes nothing. Who needs a Supreme Court that accomplishes nothing?

The bottom line, with all due respect to the lawprofs, is that courts exist to resolve issues for real people. To do so requires clarity of thought and expression, together with a level of completeness to their decision that serves to tell regular people, not to mention us trench lawyers, how to conduct ourselves. We need issues resolved. They are not giving us answers. The Supreme Court is failing us.

In many instances, the issues taken up by the Supremes are so limited, perhaps even trivial, that we don't feel much heat as a result of their partial decision-making, or their indecipherable holdings. While certainly a warning of problems ahead, such decisions aren't important enough to society to raise voices in concern. But this week may well prove to be very, very different. This may be the week that the Supreme Court decides one of the most significant issues to impact society in decades. This may be the week of Heller.

District of Columbia v. Heller could cause a seismic shift in society. It could hold that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right. It could hold that laws restricting this right must pass the strict scrutiny test. And it could wreak havoc upon our society if it is consistent with the half-baked decisions that the Court has issued of late.

Should the Court open the door in Heller, but fail to address the many obvious questions that arise from such a decision, it could open the door to a decade (if not more) of confusion, litigation, inconsistency and irrationality, as people, legislators and courts try to sift their way through the application of a broad rule without any real parameters.

This will cause chaos. It will throw the legal world into disarray. It will cause harm, expense and anger. It will put people into prison who may have committed no crime, but won't know because the Court neglected to provide answers to the obvious questions. It is unacceptable.

Perhaps the justices (and those who provide support) are too intelligent, paralyzed by their brilliance from providing fully fleshed-out answers to the questions before them. Perhaps they are disconnected from the need for guidance in the trenches, satisfied with their product and oblivious to the fact that those of us in the trenches who rely on their every word can't make use of decisions that beg more questions than they answer. Maybe internal politics precludes them from providing fully formed answers to pressing questions, leaving us with nothing more than a decision unworthy of the tree that was killed.

But one thing has become clear to me. The Supreme Court has failed to deliver this term. If they cannot issue a decision that provides meaningful guidance on how courts should decide cases, people should behave and other branches of government should conduct their affairs, then there is no reason for the Supreme Court to exist.

I pray they do a better job in Heller. I fear they won't.

I have to disagree with this in part since I think that Justice Stevens did a super job of following precedent and clarifying United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), which is what I believe the court should have done as a unanimous opinion rather than produce the politically motivated pap which passed for a majority opinion that was produced in this decision.

Not to mention that any amendment of the Constitution's language should come through proper channels. That is the legislature, not the judiciary.

Simple Justice also says this about Heller:

To cut to the chase, the sum total of Heller is that states cannot have a blanket prohibition on the possession of a handgun within the home for purposes of self-defense by individuals who are not otherwise prohibited, such as felons and the insane. That's all she wrote.

Another point Simple Justice points out is:

During the arguments preceding Heller, I asked everyone, particularly the lawprofs, to provide any explanation of how one concludes that the Second Amendment provides a fundamental individual right, and still avoids all the implications of such a right. We now have an answer, straight from the pen of Justice Antonin Scalia:

There is absolutely no rationale to support such a conclusion, so Scalia simply announced that all the limitations that he wants to apply continue to do so and provides no explanation or rationale at all. It's a total punt.

I am less of a Supreme Court Junkie than Simple Justice since I tend to practise law and do these rants as a sideline to exorcise my demons, which is why I don't sign my name. Trust me, you could figure out who I am from what I write here if you were as intelligent as you think you are: there is a mass publication article about us which is easily googled if indeed you were as intelligent as you think you are (it came up first go for me).

The thing is that it would have been very easy to have stuck with precedent and give an opinion like that of Justice Stevens. In fact, I made a comment about how CJ Roberts said he didn't want to burden the second Amendment with baggage, which could only be achieved by following precedent.

Also, I believe that Simple Justice points out as I do, the finding of an "individual Right" outside of the militia context requires something much more substantial than the Heller decision provided. First off, what is the standard of review for this right? Scalia, as I have also pointed out, states that restrictions are allowable. In fact, I know he allows for reasonable restrictions.

Now what the fuck does "reasonable restriction" mean when the wording is "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Sorry, but that type of language means that laws restricting this right must pass the strict scrutiny test.

What most people don't realise is that the Civic/Collective right interpretation doesn't mean gun control is a requirement: only that the Second Amendment applies to the militia organised under Article I, Section 8: not personal firearms ownership.

That means you could have a complete gun ban, or make everybody buy a gun. Well, the latter might be hard as people could say their religion prevents them from owning a deadly weapon. But still, there would be no ruling on firearms being a personal protected right or not.

On the other hand, The Justice Stevens removes the concept of "gun right" from the political arena in his opinion, which would have been a very good thing. I mean Heller could provide a field day for lawyers bent on causing mischief.

Which in some ways, Heller removes the concept of gun rights or the spectre of a gun ban from the political arena as well.

So, do you prefer pandering or precedent?

I'll stick with precedent.

Does the Second Amendment apply to the States?

The problem with the Second Amendment is that it was intended to prevent Federal interference with State run militias organised under Article I, Section 8. I've gone on at length that most of the half quotations used by those posing as Second Amendment scholars deal with the conflict between the Federal Army and the State Militias set up under Article I, Section 8--not some weird individual right. That was pointed out in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) where the Supreme Court had directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

Scalia breezed over this very salient point to Second Amendment jurisprudence as do most alleged "Second Amendment Scholars". Amusingly enough, Scalia has already said it doesn't: “[T]here is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states.” A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (1997). Let's see if he can stick with his own precedent!

Anyway, The Second Amendment is a limitation on the Federal Power granted Under Article I, Section 8. As I pointed out in my critique of Dellinger's advocacy he neglected that Miller had already set for the standard of review and that the Second Amendment was written to address the Federal Power granted Under Article I, Section 8, which he should have hammered on about like a broken record.

Now, Any first year law student who has participated in moot court knows that one shouldn't let the Judges take over your argument. Dellinger should have hammered that it was settled law by a Unanimous opinion and that the Second Amendment guarantee should not be extended.

Now with Chicago fighting any Second Amendment challenge to its gun ban based upon the Second Amendment being a limitation on the power of Congress/Federal Government and not local jurisdiction. I hope that Chicago has better appellate advocates than does Washington, DC.

On the other hand, I hope that other lawyers see the advantage to open up the scope of rights granted by the Bill of Rights since Heller was willing to give a broad reading to the rights granted under that document. The Heller decision was bad law as it set a precedent which will allow for much mischief by clever lawyers.

Why should we be bound by the words of the Constitution, especially where clever lawyers can argue an extension of our rights?

As I said, isn't health care a fundamental right? How can one argue with health care?

I want my right to health care that is guaranteed under the Ninth Amendment!

Brilliant!

The oiks who think that Heller was properly decided didn't think out the implication of suddenly extending a right where it had not existed. In fact, firearms have been used as a wedge issue to avoid the problems we are now facing. But now we can use Heller's expanded reading of the Second Amendment to our advantage.

You see, if there is a right to life for the unborn and a right to a deadly weapon for self-defence there must surely be a right to health care, a home, and I would even add in a job. After all the economy is based upon debt (see one of my other posts), it is ridiculous to not have the ability to pay those debts.

We have had these clever lawyers out there making a change in how the law was interpreted by coming up with something not grounded in reality: which the current interpretation of the Second Amendment is. The Second Amendment has been used as a wedge issue to great effect.

Well, let's use our expanded Ninth Amendment rights to our advantage for issues that are important to people: health care, housing, and jobs. I mean if the Second Amendment can be expanded to allow for a right to deadly force, why can't the Ninth be used for the benefit of the people.

So, let's just expand our rights. Let's add baggage to the Constitution!

Maybe DC v Heller isn't so bad....

I am curious is there anyway that the DC v. Heller decision could be extended to Universal Health care?

I mean if it's my right to own a firearm for self-defence even though that term is never mentioned in any version of the text of the Second Amendment, isn't there a way that my right to health care can be protected by the Constitution? In fact, the common law doctrine of self-defence said that one should use only enough force reasonable to stop the attack and that excessive force could turn a defender into an aggressor to paraphrase Blackstone. That puts paid to self-defence and gun ownership since deadly force is last recourse, not the first.

On the other hand, I believe that the health and well being of a nation's citizens are of utmost importance. Health care must be a right if owning a firearm is a right.

Don't forget that the Ninth Amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people "

Now, doesn't that mean that I have the right to health care? Isn't my good health a fundamental right and of interest to society? I believe I have the right to health care. I'm sure the founding fathers would agree with me as well since they said something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. Not to mention we have the technology to ensure good health care for all.

That is the ultimate fundamental right. In fact, I don't want to live in a country where the right to use deadly force is more important than people's health.

In fact, couldn't we also extend my rights to say that I have a right to a home, no matter how humble that home may be.

Why should deadly force be a right but not health care and the right to a home?

Why would the founding fathers believe in a right to a firearm, which cost a significant portion of personal income, yet deny us healthcare or a home?

It is my Ninth Amendment right to health care and a house.

How do we remedy this wrong?

Or, you are charged with possession of an illegal weapon and

the weapon in question is a Great Highland Bagpipe.













The prosecution is based upon a statute dealing with firearms. In fact, the precise language is that "the weapon must fire a projectile using either a chemical, explosive, or pneumatic pressure force"

The prosecution relies upon the 1746 prosecution of James Reid, a Piper who was executed at York as a rebel. In his trial it was alleged in his defence that he had not carried arms, but the court observed that a Highland regiment never marched without a piper and therefore that his bagpipe in the eyes of the law was an instrument of war.

"The bagpipe is the only musical instrument deemed a weapon of war because it inspired its troops to battle and instilled terror into the enemy. The skirl of the pipes stirs men's and women's souls and its power and influence in battle as in life, is measurable".

The prosecution brings forth loads of documentation to prove that the bagpipe is an instrument of war and should be considered a weapon. Oh dear, even the EU bureaucrats want to go after bagpipes as well!

Should the law be extended based solely upon this new scholarship?

You're in court and the Judge is a large marsupial

Why because you have been charged with a crime.

Let's make this fun, you were charged with possession of a controlled substance: Motor Oil.

The law you were charged with states:

a person is guilty of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree when that person knowingly and unlawfully possesses one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances containing a narcotic drug and said preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances are of an aggregate weight of one-half [1/2] ounce or more.

I'll add in the narcotic drugs for purpose of this act (and example) are opium, morphine, heroin, and Oxycontin, which is found in the definition section that I just made up for this example.

But the controlled substance you are found in possession is pure motor oil: no weird summertime blend that just happens to contain any of the mentioned narcotics.

Where in the words of the quoted statute are the words "motor oil"?

Nowhere, right.

My point exactly.

But the prosecutor is arguing that motor oil is controlled since there are taxes on it, it is only sold in filling stations, and has been rationed in the past. The words "containing a narcotic drug and said preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances" don't really matter since this is about controlled substances, which motor oil surely is. She even brings in loads of legislative histories dealing with the rationing of motor oil, which in her opinion proves beyind a reasonable doubt that motor oil is a controlled substance. And she has popular opinion on her side to boot.

There is the new scholarship which proves motor oil is a controlled substance.

So, Nearly everybody believes motor oil is a controlled substance since this is my example and you have to take this as a given, even though it is legally incorrect.

All the case law says that this is ridiculous because the whole wording of the statute needs to be considered. One cannot go outside of the statute, or just use part of the statute and disregard inconvenient language such as "containing a narcotic drug and said preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances". Add in that motor oil and narcotics are two different things. The intent of the legislature writing the controlled substance law didn't consider motor oil, let alone have it around ad arguendo (after all this is my example). Add in that all legal precedent says that controlled substance only applies to narcotics enumerated in my example.

If you think Heller was correctly decided, then you should have no problem with being convicted.

As I like to say:

show me the words "self-defence" in this text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

or this one:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can't, can you.

I see the words "well regulated militia", but zip about self-defence.

Now, if you were charged with a crime and the actual act wasn't covered by the wording in the text, would you expect to be convicted?

Nope, any lawyer would rip holes in the prosecution. Well, except for the second amendment crowd as they would believe it was a controlled substance just because everyone believes it is a controlled substance.

Additionally, you are saying that the law can be anything a judge decides it to be irrespective of the wording or precedent since Heller was correctly decided. Popular opinion counts far more than legal precedent or proper legal method.

Is that what you really want?

He who should not be named.

There are several "Second Amendment Scholars" out there who really should be ashamed, but one pisses me off completely. It seems I am not alone. He is a law prof, which started my rant on law profs, although I have never liked the US system of legal education.

Somebody said he isn't an idiot? Maybe just an ignorant bastard. The only thing he who should not be named is good at is carpeting the internet with his opinions, which some people are beginning to see as total crap. The reason for the spouting of shit is that research scores are influenced by blogs.

I made a comment about not trusting someone who called himself Russian when he was from the Ukraine. He was born in Kiev, the capitol of Ukraine. These days, Ukrainians constitute the largest ethnic group in Kiev, and they account for 2,110,800 people, or 82.2% of the population. His response:

"I was born into a highly Russified segment of society in what was at the time a highly Russified city in a latter-day Russian Empire. I almost never heard Ukrainian spoken, and Russian was my first language."

Well, it is the capitol of the Ukraine, there might haver been a couple of Ukrainians hanging about back then. The fact that he didn't care to see them says quite a bit. It also says what an arrogant fuck this guy is as well.

Which got to my response which dealt with the fact that Ukrainians see Russians as occupiers. They were forced to speak Russian under the Soviet Union. Never mind the Holodomor, a massive famine caused by Soviet Policies.

Add in Chernobyl.

Why would the Ukrainians like the Russians?

That's just what I see as his ignorance of the history of the country he was born in. He isn't much better on his new homeland's history either.

His legal opinions aren't very good and he is a law professor, and I don't think he is a member of a bar or actually practised law. I post those qualifications on my professional webpage and would expect anyone who is a practising lawyer to do so as well.

But that is pretty typical for most US law professors not to have actually set foot in a courtroom let alone tried a case.

If his answers to law school exams were anything like his responses to my comments, then this person isn't worth the bandwidth.

Actually this exchange shows up He who should not be named for the wanker he is:

{He who should not be named is head commentator at a legal site} which I read frequently, and asked him to check what I said about the death penalty above. He is a top legal scholar who regularly posts on legal topics. His reply: "Nope, sorry, not an expert on the death penalty, and swamped. Have to pass." I suppose I had better take his name off of my "death penalty" expert list.

Funny, but I googled He who should not be named and death penalty and the web is carpeted with his opinions. My guess is that He who should not be named doesn't want to be caught out for the ignorant bastard he really is by someone who knows what they are talking about. Personally, I would remove He who should not be named name from any list of experts except for one on being an expert in self-promotion.

I don't want to name him because that would only raise his score on the computer, which is what he wants.

He who should not be named agrees with Oscar Wilde that "The only thing worse than being talked about it not being talked about".

But as I like to say, I want to get things off my chest which is why I blog. I do this for myself.

But I am not going to say this character's name because I don't want him getting any more publicity. I just hope that others see him for what he is: an arrogant wanker whose opinions aren't worth wiping one's arse with who has used the system to get himself publicity.

Editorial comment: the author is related to a Ukrainian nationalist, Stepan Bandera, who was assassinated by the Russians in 1959

Who do people in the United States appeal to?

I have to admit watching the furore over the elections in Iran and thinking about the contested Bush v. Gore election. Personally, I believe that Bush was not elected president and that there were indeed suspicious circumstances. The amusing thing was that a newspaper in Zimbabwe had an editorial pointing out that if the son of any other former head of a security service had been elected under similar circumstances, there would have been serious questions raised.

The question went to the Supreme Court which had this

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

in the dissenting opinion. Bush v. Gore dissent

That works for where I am going with this post because first off, I am a sore loser that Bush had 8 years to ruin the US and the world.

But even more upset at how the District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) decision was decided. Amusingly enough, both Bush v. Gore and the Heller decision were written by the same person: Justice Scalia (editorial comment: and the dissents in these cases by the same person: Justice Stevens).

Now, if the US were a commonwealth country, it could appeal to Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council which was formerly a supreme court of appeal for the entire British Empire.

Now, I realise that Heller addressed the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, but the case was wrongly decided as "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it." [Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 175(1803)] Meaning that the question framed by the court in DC v. Heller (ibid):

"The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

was a resounding "NO" and had been made precedent by United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) where the Supreme Court had directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

I realise that McReynolds wrote this holding in an ass backward manner, it makes much more sense if the first paragraph is read after the second or to paraphrase this for the intellectually challenged:

The entire text of the Second Amendment was made with the obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the forces created under authority of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16. It must be interpreted and applied in consideration of that purpose. Without evidence that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' is reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment of the body organised under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution or that its use and possession would contribute to the common defense.

As far as I can tell, no deference was given to the precedent set by the unanimous decision in United States v. Miller.

Which takes me to my second point, the Second Amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, I have seen a couple of versions of this with various punctuation, but the verbiage is pretty much the same.

I do not see the words "self-defence".

One cannot place words or concepts into a law without their being there in the actual text.

Justice Scalia glommed in the concept of self-defence where it does not exist. In common law, this is a big no-no.

It would be nice to be able to take this to the Privy Council as they have familiarity with the common law concept of self-defence.

The right to keep and bear arms also comes from the British Bill of Rights:

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Amusingly enought, as I like to point out, the real issue of the Second Amendment is the prevention of the establishment of a standing army by ensuring the vitality of the militia institution, and this:

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law.

is right before the clause on bearing arms.

Yet, there is loads of US scholarship which removes the Second Amendment from its role of preserving citizen militias creating a bulwark against standing armies. On the other hand, no other common law country with a similar provision has the concept of "gun rights".

Actually, shouldn't that be "arms" rights?

Another concept in the British Bill of rights is freedom from royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge. Likewise, the executive should not have sway over the judiciary. Even more importantly, neither should popular opinion. The proper forum for changing the constitution is the legislature, not the judiciary.

Heller was a political decision, not a proper legal one, and Justice Scalia needs to have his wrist smacked by a higher authority (or maybe even a nun). My blog is for my own amusement and to exorcise my demons. I doubt Justice Scalia gives rat's arse what I say, but he should be ashamed to have his name attached to Heller.

And I want to point out something from the opinions above: It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. In other words, it is having faith that the proper rules of judicial decision making, that is following the law and precedent are followed, which allows for confidence in the judicial system. I need to trust that Judges will follow legal precendent and not whims.

It is a sad state of affairs if the Judges of the highest court are swayed by political considerations rather than legal ones.

I think that all should be disturbed by the Heller decision and its disregard for legal process.

Now, am I too late to file this appeal to the Privy Council?

Changes, or first thing we do is kill all the lawyers.

I've decided to add that "I have been to court more than most US law school professors ever have" after engaging in a debate with someone whose only qualifications in the law were two judicial clerkships and is now a law professor with a reputation. I am assuming that this person is not admitted to the bar since that should also be listed on his bio.

I mean I would list my bar admissions and do on my online CV. Trust me, you could figure out who I am from what I write here if you were as intelligent as you think you are: there is a mass publication article about us which is easily googled if indeed you were as intelligent as you think you are (it came up first go for me).

Anyway, as they say, those who can't teach.

The scary bit is that his blogs have quite a following: especially amongst the great unwashed. But then again, I think the masses are indeed asses.

Not sure whether to describe the blog as a circle-jerk or confederacy of dunces. Of course, that may sound like sour grapes since I tried to join his listserve and never had a response. Of course, someone with real experience in the field could be detrimental to the party. Not to mention I wouldn't want to join a club that would have me as a member.

I have no love for the legal profession in the US for a myriad of reasons: the system of legal education being the primary one. Having people trained by academics with no grounding in reality should frighten the masses. Additionally, all one need do is survive an accredited law school and pass the bar to inflict oneself upon the US legal system.

Other legal systems have ways to cull the herd, but not the US legal system. There are stagiaires, pupillages, and articled clerkships in other countries which actually ground the fledgling lawyer in the law. When I was doing my pupillage in England, the Law Society (the governing authority for British Solicitors) knocked down the number of articled clerks allowed for that year's class size. Barristers need to be admitted to chambers after they finish their pupillage. Otherwise, you can't practise law as a barrister.

Not to mention that not only do law schools have professors who have never actually practised law, but are pretty lax in who gets in with class sizes growing. Which ends up with this frightening fact that the US has half the lawyers in the world since anyone who can pass the bar exam and get admitted is admitted to practise law!