"Neither of the two main opinions in Heller would pass muster as serious historical writing," Stanford University historian Jack Rakove wrote on a blog called Balkinization.
Neither Scalia nor Stevens is a "competent historian," University of Texas at Austin professor Sanford Levinson wrote in another Balkinization posting. Their work is "what is sometimes called 'law-office history,' in which each side engages in shamelessly (and shamefully) selective readings of the historical record in order to support what one suspects are predetermined positions."
Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet, like Levinson, has studied the 2nd Amendment. Tushnet wrote that both opinions "demonstrate why judges shouldn't play historian."
History is complicated, Tushnet suggested, but the law requires clear answers, and the justices "share the natural human tendency to exaggerate the case that can be made for the side they ultimately favor."
Joined: 24 Dec 2006 Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject:
Like the Bible you can pick and choose what you want to cite as a verification for your cause
and this is what the SC has been doing especially with this Court
never mind that the framers lived in the 18th century
never mind that they were very specific about the separation of Church and State
and never mind that they never did say that guns should be used under the purview of an actve militia
they take what's legally expediaent and damn with the rest of history