Thursday, October 01, 2009

MSM Grand Slam on Cliches!

TIME Magazine is getting out in front of everyone else in handwringing on the fact that the Supremes will be ruling on incorporation of the Second...they even manage a rare grand slam on cliches, including getting in a pat on the back for hunting guns, "classic" references to the Wild West, and ominous pronouncements that the American people will punish Republicans if the bloated corpse of gun control is finally cremated and tossed to the wind. My favorite part of the article is the gut-wrenching fear that the Roberts Court will rule to radically expand personal liberties before Obama has a chance to stack the Court in the other direction...read it all:
The latest example of the Roberts Court's activist ambitions is its quick acceptance, for decision next year, of a gun-rights appeal from Chicago. Last year the Court ruled 5-4 that the right to bear arms flows to and from individuals, even though it is mentioned in the Constitution in the context of a "well-regulated militia." Reading the Constitution in that way, the court struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia. But there was some doubt about whether the court's reasoning would apply in a state, as opposed to the federal District of Columbia, and how the enunciation of a new fundamental, individual right should be applied. Now the court will take up the appeal of a case of a handgun ban in Chicago to clear things up.

Expect another sweeping smack down. First, the court has already laid down a new principle -- which, believe it or not, had never been directly addressed. Second, if my sense of the Roberts Court is correct, they are going to seek the most sweeping rulings they can manage to get on what they regard as their key Bill of Rights issues -- gun rights, freedom of the marketplace from federal regulation, corporate rights to free speech and official public religious expression, to name four -- before the arrival of a moment they dread fear: when President Barack Obama get's the chance to nominate an ideological tide-changing justice.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Howard Fineman
http://www.newsweek.com/id/32228

Chas said...

"Carrying a gun into a bar is quite another -- and I can't imagine that politicians who allow it are going to be popular with the American voter."

"Even Democrats like cowboys, but even Republicans (or at least independents) don't want to bring back the Wild West."

Democrats hate cowboys so much that they use the word as a term of derision in political discourse. Cowboys represent freedom and independence, and those are ideas that make Democrats' blood boil because those ideas thwart their government control agenda.
Fineman is also jive talking about guns in bars. CCW is a nonevent, with no political penalty.
For a Senior Washington Correspondent and Columnist, senior editor and deputy Washington bureau chief, Howard Fineman talks junk, but it's politically correct junk, so he keeps his job, which he wouldn't if he was caught telling the truth. How can anyone respect someone who gets paid to stroke liberal sensibilities with soothing lies and blandishments? Revolting!

Clark Kent said...

Actually Fineman is one "sensible" short of a slam. Is he slipping?

Geoff aka Pathfinder said...

Sumpin to ponder -

bho doesn't really need the SCOTUS. Consider this - all he needs is to agree to some seemingly innocuous UN treaty, ram it through his Dem controlled Senate (esp with Teddy's handpicked replacement on board) and let the UN then add to the provisions covered by the treaty to outlaw private ownership of guns.

bho will use the SCOTUS to gain a perception of lawfulness, when his whole aim is lawlessness by him and his minions.

Anonymous said...

Boy, that nasty old Roberts court making "the most sweeping rulings they can manage to get". Like in Heller, where they said DC residents could have any kind of gun they wanted and could carry it anywhere and didn't have to get a permit and didn't have to register it and . . .

Oh, wait. They didn't?

What a maroon.

Anonymous said...

Do I only have freedom of speech in DC?

Where and if I pray can be regulated by the state or city government?

Where does Time and Newsweek find these people?

Ratcatcher55

be603 said...

Actually the Wild West wasn't all that wild. John Lott linked to an academic study of that a while back. Turns out an armed society is indeed a polite society.

Wish I could find the bookmark...

Clark Kent said...

Evidently John Lott never watched Deadwood.

Anonymous said...

"...before the arrival of a movement that dread fear: when President Barrack Obama get's the chance to nominate an ideological tide-changing justice." Does Time and Howard Fineman think that this is a good thing? Appointing an ideologue should incur the wrath of everyone. The objective interpretation of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is what MUST be done. That is what the much hated "Originalists" do. Originalists happen to be right. The lefty Revisionists, try hard each time, to re-write history, to fit their Utopian dreams. It's painful for the "left" to admit, but once again, they are wrong.
Life Member