Anti-gun justice robbed...by machete wielding robber...

[billc]

Well, if this isn't...interesting. A liberal, anit-gun justice was robbed by a machete wielding robber at the justices vacation home...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/anti-gun_justice_becomes_victim_of_armed_robbery.html

I think this is the justice I once saw explain his decision in the Lopez case where he used the commerce clause to justify banning the ownership of firearms within so many feet of public schools. Yes, the commerce clause. The argument he made went like this...If you allow people to own guns near schools, the children in the schools will be afraid. If they are afraid, it will impact their ability to get a good education which will impact their ability to get good jobs. With people unable to get good jobs because they lack a good education because they were afraid at school...that will impact interstate commerce and hence, the Federal government, under the commerce clause, can regulate gun ownership near schools. I heard the justice with my own little ears. I think it was this guy, but it may have been one of the other nitwits.

Breyer voted against the majority in two recent landmark gun-rights cases: District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, both 5-4 decisions. In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment granted Americans the constitutional right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense, and the Court applied (or "incorporated") that right to the states in McDonald. Breyer denied that the Constitution granted Americans the right to armed self-defense in his dissenting opinions.

Breyer also made a laughingstock of himself back in 1999 by citing the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe --- yes, Zimbabwe! -- in two death penalty cases, Moore v. Nebraska and Knight v. Florida.

From wikipedia on the Lopez decision:

[h=2]The dissent
[/h] Justice Breyer authored the principal dissenting opinion.[SUP][14][/SUP] He applied three principles that he considered basic:

1. The Commerce Clause included the power to regulate local activities so long as those "significantly affect" interstate commerce.
2. In considering the question, a court must consider not only the individual act being regulated (i.e. a single case of gun possession) but rather the cumulative effect of all similar acts (i.e. the effect of all guns possessed in or near schools).
3. A court must specifically determine not whether the regulated activity significantly affected interstate commerce, but whether Congress could have had a "rational basis" for so concluding.[SUP][15][/SUP]

With these principles in mind, Justice Breyer asked if Congress could have rationally found that the adverse effect of violent crime in school zones, acting through the intermediary effect of degrading the quality of education, could significantly affect interstate commerce. Based on the existence of empirical studies, he answered this question affirmatively.[SUP][16][/SUP] He pointed out the growing importance of education in the job market, noting that increased global competition made primary and secondary education more important.[SUP][17][/SUP] He also observed that US firms make location decisions, in part, on the presence or absence of an educated work force.[SUP][18][/SUP]

​

 

[Big Don]

I guess we'll find out if a liberal really is a conservative who hasn't been mugged...

 

[Makalakumu]

This incident is justice. Only a despot disarms law abiding citizens. Karma rarely is delivered so publically.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

 

[Grenadier]

Where was his secret service ensemble? Whenever they go out of the country, a SS detail is supposed to go with him.

Anyways, I guess it's time for him to promote machete control...

 

[Big Don]

Anyways, I guess it's time for him to promote machete control...

Or hammer control, clearly, we need a waiting period...

 

[billc]

Ginsburg was mugged and it didn't help her...

 

[oftheherd1]

I guess we'll find out if a liberal really is a conservative who hasn't been mugged...

Unfortunately, probably not. He will have to find some reason to justify his beliefs. He will probably reason that his assailant was somehow forced to do what he did by society.

It just blows my mind that he and others, to the delight of congress, who try to base much law on the commerce clause, believe the commerce clause trumps every other part of the constitution.