Absolute truth

In the classic Dan O'Neill comic Odd Bodkins (click the post title to check it out), one of his characters gives the definition of Absolute Truth: a 5-to-4 decision of the Supreme Court.

The recent Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment (District of Columbia v. Heller) bears that out. Justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy concluded that "the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment". In their dissent, Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer said that "there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution".

Rico says he wonders how anyone with the brainpower of a Supreme Court justice (and they're not dumb, these people; misguided, maybe, but not dumb) could come to the conclusion that there is 'no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution'. And, if it's a common-law right, then isn't that assumed to be covered by the Constitution? But even the Wall Street Journal said that "with the next president likely to appoint as many as three justices, the right to bear arms has been affirmed but still isn't safe". Thus, if Barack Obama intends to nominate anti-Second Amendment justices to the court (and there is every likelihood that he, being a staunch Democrat, will do so), then maybe McCain is the way to go in November... (Too bad, too. Obama is so interesting on so many levels...)