605
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The Hawaii Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion on Wednesday declaring that its state constitution grants individuals absolutely no right to keep and bear arms outside the context of military service. Its decision rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, refusing to interpolate SCOTUS’ shoddy historical analysis into Hawaii law. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the ruling on this week’s Slate Plus segment of Amicus; their conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 211 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The conservatives on the supreme court are crap historians and even worse judges.

[-] cogman@lemmy.world 133 points 8 months ago

Originalism is nothing more than a mechanism for the Supreme Court to undo past precedent they don't like. Welcome to the new lochner era.

Hopefully we end this one like we ended the last, with a wave of socialism and a tough president willing to pack the court.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 56 points 8 months ago

Sorry Loving v Virginia, it didn't used to be widely understood that the equal protection clause would forbid inter racial marriage bans. After all, both white and black people are forbidden from marrying other races by those laws. There, equal. That's how it was historically understood, heck it was illegal in 16 states still at the time and widely disapproved of.

But this presumes origialism is some coherent philosophy in the first place, instead of an excuse for partisan hackery cherry picking by Heritage Foundation stooges to get the conclusion they want.

Count me in favor of packing the court, not like there's any integrity to jeopardize. More to lose by doing nothing while they continue to rampage.

[-] cogman@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago

The next two civil rights I'm guessing we lose are gay marriage (Obergefell) and contraceptive access (Griswold). Obergefell because it was already close and hating anyone that's not cis is in vogue now on the right. Griswold because it was determined on exactly the same lines as Loving and Roe (In fact, Griswold is what underlay roe) and there's enough religious nuts out there that feel like contraceptives are sinful.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

We may lose sodomy as well (Lawrence)

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 5 points 8 months ago

*not cis and straight

[-] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 19 points 8 months ago

The Senate already changed the number of justices to 8 for a year. I don't see why it would be wrong to add extras after they admitted the count doesn't matter.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 4 points 8 months ago
[-] diablexical@lemm.ee 16 points 8 months ago

When Pubs neglected their constitutional duty to appoint Garland

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 8 months ago

Ah. I hadn't thought of it that way.

[-] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

More judges are needed to right the wrongs of the federal Supreme Court!

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

This is such a great argument for why we must pack the court to fix this injustice.

Do nothing, and we will surely suffer the partisan revisionism. Pack the courts, and there’s at least a chance to right the ship.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

And the major questions doctrine is just there to change laws they don't like.

[-] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago

In practice, "Originalism" refers to a quality of the judgements. Each ruling is its own original interpretation of the Constitution very clearly independent of any others.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Hopefully we end this one like we ended the last, with a wave of socialism and a tough president willing to pack the court.

Given the current crop of politicians moving through the state and federal seats, I'm not holding my breath.

[-] cogman@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah, it's not going to be anytime soon. And I really don't know what will change things.

[-] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 32 points 8 months ago

Both of those assume good faith

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

The liberal judges on SCOTUS still recognize 2A, though maybe with a few more restrictions. You wouldn't see them pass this decision.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't know how they would have decided on this specific case, but I'm happy to see anyone standing up to the extreme extent the modern court has taken things with the second amendment. DC vs Heller, which started this nonsense not allowing basically any effective gun control legislation to stand, was a close decision, 5-4. The dissenting opinion was even written by a conservative registered republican, appointed by a republican president (John Paul Stevens, yes he was considered a conservative appointee, but looked more liberal over time as the court got more extreme around him): In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law."

Our current judicial extremism on gun rights is out of control. More recently a gun control law that had stood for a hundred years in New York was struck down. And yes it was 6-3 with all the liberal justices strongly dissenting. Our current interpretation of the second amendment is an extreme modernist interpretation twisted by people like the Federalist Society and NRA, with plenty of money from gun manufacturers and other interests flowing in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen

[-] DigitalNirvana@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Popular opinion.

this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
605 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19138 readers
4179 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS