Sorry, the hyperbole of "whatever the fuck that means" got me distracted. OP was too busy being angsty and emo to make a clear statement regarding his ability to tell the difference between the two. Not my fault if his heavy handed rhetoric confused my ability to tell if he really knew the difference between a collective right and an individual right.
I was equally confused by his decision that the "nutty ninth" as it were has somehow foreclosed the notion of a living constitution any more/less than all previous decisions to come before any court making calls based on constitutionality. Maybe I'm high, but have judges suddenly started ruling "living constitution!" instead of merely battling it out on issues of jurisprudence? Is this changing the status quo whatsoever? The decision was made at the Supreme Court level in DC v. Heller -- all the Ninth is doing is aligning itself so that the cases don't make repeat appeals.
And I find it interesting that *I* get to be nailed on ad hominem, while the OP's post contains numerous examples of implicit ad hom attacks (related to notions of common sense and reason) on previous "nutty Ninth" decisions to ultimately deliver a news report with little conversational value. OP made a pretty posting of a statement of fact with very little to discuss -- either we cheer with the OP and rally against the nutty Ninth, or we sit on our hands and say, "yup, that's how the court decided." There ain't discussion here, just baiting.
Bookmarks