http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-12707/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-12707/comment-page-1/#comment-13088 William Gray Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:49:31 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-12707/#comment-13088 Until about 1950, federal court decisions were universally in the individual rights sphere. The Dred Scott decision said in one place that(paraphrasing)"Of course negroes cannot have full rights or they would have the right to keep and bear arms." The awkward opening phrase of the 2nd Amendment has a comparable clause in the Constitution where patents and copyrights are established. It says (paraphrasing) that "When inventions and literature advance science and the arts, then patents and copyrights may be granted." Do you want federal bureaucrats judging pop music and pop rocks under those standards?? Or is the opening phrase just a suggestion and a beginning point rather than a firm requirement? "The people" in the bill of rights is consistent and never refers to some group standing in for all of us. The right to assemble does not mean that Congress has the right to assemble and speak for us exclusively. Until about 1950, federal court decisions were universally in the individual rights sphere. The Dred Scott decision said in one place that(paraphrasing)”Of course negroes cannot have full rights or they would have the right to keep and bear arms.” The awkward opening phrase of the 2nd Amendment has a comparable clause in the Constitution where patents and copyrights are established. It says (paraphrasing) that “When inventions and literature advance science and the arts, then patents and copyrights may be granted.” Do you want federal bureaucrats judging pop music and pop rocks under those standards?? Or is the opening phrase just a suggestion and a beginning point rather than a firm requirement? “The people” in the bill of rights is consistent and never refers to some group standing in for all of us. The right to assemble does not mean that Congress has the right to assemble and speak for us exclusively.

]]> http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-12707/comment-page-1/#comment-13076 Roger Friedman Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:01:59 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-12707/#comment-13076 I'm not sure why 07-0291, STOP v. Northland, is such a likely case. FRCP 24a is reserved for legally created rights. In a number of cases it has been held that organizations that promote successful initiatives, merely for having done so, have no more standing to challenge the manner in which the adopted initiative is enforced than any other citizen. Do we really expect this Court to expand the right to challenge executive enforcement? Ask Mr. Munaf after he's executed. I’m not sure why 07-0291, STOP v. Northland, is such a likely case. FRCP 24a is reserved for legally created rights. In a number of cases it has been held that organizations that promote successful initiatives, merely for having done so, have no more standing to challenge the manner in which the adopted initiative is enforced than any other citizen. Do we really expect this Court to expand the right to challenge executive enforcement? Ask Mr. Munaf after he’s executed.

]]>