T-Minus 16 Minutes and Counting
SCOTUS will he handing down its Heller v. DC decision this morning, sometime after 10AM. Here's what I'm calling the best case scenario, as far as the basic argument of individual vs. collective right is concerned.
BEST CASE: 6 to 3 in favor of an individual right.
Obviously, any decision favoring the "rights" of overbearing governmental tyrants would be disastrous. So, we can rule out everything from 0-9 to 4-5.
A decision of 5-4 favoring our side would leave the "ambiguous card" still on the table, for the anti-gunners to play, ad infinitum, in the future.
A decision of 9-0 or 8-1 favoring our side would create a dangerous sense of complacency among gun owners, who might feel less compelled to keep Barack Obama out of the White House and away from the position of appointing replacement Supreme Court justices.
The reality is there's simply no such thing as "cast in stone" where governmental recognition of our rights is concerned.
A 6-3 ruling would give us the "2 to 1" argument, yet would still keep people on their toes by letting them know that tyranny could be a mere two new justices away.
OK, I'd be happy with a 7-2 split as well.
As I'm wont to say...
We shall see.
UPDATE: OK, don't get me wrong. I'd launch into full-blown naked happy-dance in the event of the 9-0 ruling. Just don't think it will happen. But, damn, the ensuing PSHitstorm (anyone copyright that one yet?) would be entertaining beyond measure.
BEST CASE: 6 to 3 in favor of an individual right.
Obviously, any decision favoring the "rights" of overbearing governmental tyrants would be disastrous. So, we can rule out everything from 0-9 to 4-5.
A decision of 5-4 favoring our side would leave the "ambiguous card" still on the table, for the anti-gunners to play, ad infinitum, in the future.
A decision of 9-0 or 8-1 favoring our side would create a dangerous sense of complacency among gun owners, who might feel less compelled to keep Barack Obama out of the White House and away from the position of appointing replacement Supreme Court justices.
The reality is there's simply no such thing as "cast in stone" where governmental recognition of our rights is concerned.
A 6-3 ruling would give us the "2 to 1" argument, yet would still keep people on their toes by letting them know that tyranny could be a mere two new justices away.
OK, I'd be happy with a 7-2 split as well.
As I'm wont to say...
We shall see.
UPDATE: OK, don't get me wrong. I'd launch into full-blown naked happy-dance in the event of the 9-0 ruling. Just don't think it will happen. But, damn, the ensuing PSHitstorm (anyone copyright that one yet?) would be entertaining beyond measure.
