OK. Kinda, sorta 'lays it down.' Here's his last 'graf:
This is a critical juncture. The court is now more or less evenly divided between two groups of justices who have dramatically different notions of the role of the judiciary. It is the purpose of this white paper to facilitate a discussion about this important trend and to foster a dialogue about the proper role of the courts in our state. It is the hope of its author that it begins now—in earnest.
So--lousy punditry aside, he actually 'laid down a challenge'--to the voters and the Supremes.
Earlier, the Shark reviewed our beloved Supremes' startling rulings of the last few years--the one which essentially was a "Shirley Says" ruling on concealed carry; the one which was a "Shirley Says" ruling on casino compacts; and the one which was a "Shirley Says" ruling on evidence in juvie cases.
Note the similarity in titling of the cases? I got that from Esenberg, who characterized a SCOTUS ruling on church/state as WWSD (what would Sandra do) ruling.
The guy is just a font of ideas.
He also slammed my thought that Shirley's inane Hamdan rule would pre-abort any CCW regulations, drat it all...which doesn't mean that one cannot try, hey. Who knows who will be sitting on the Court when a case comes up?
Worth the read, folks. We DO have to have a discussion.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment