. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Chuck Norris doesn't read books; he stares them down until he gets the information he wants out of them."
- ChuckNorrisFactsdotcom

Wednesday, May 07, 2003
Here's InstaPundit's
opinion on the Ninth's decision. (He's a law professor.) I'll go ahead and excerpt his excerpt.
"Most notable was the dissent by Judge Alex Kozinski, who wrote:

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Kozinski believes, as do I, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms, one that is meant, in part, to allow the people to revolt against a government that becomes oppressive.

For years, we were told that only "gun nuts" believed that, despite considerable evidence that the Framers believed it, too. Now this sort of thinking is becoming widespread. Even Judge Pregerson, whom UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh calls "one of the most "one of the most liberal judges on the Ninth Circuit and perhaps in the whole country," writes that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms."
I sure hope this case ends up before the Supremes.

posted by Rachel 5/07/2003
. . .
My bioethics professor would have some words to say about
this. Hell, I have some words to say about that. How on earth could you prosecute people who decline to blind, paralyse, and possibly kill their child? It's a horrible situation. It's a horrible decision to have to make, but their choice is not so freakishly obviously immoral as to warrant legal action. I can't believe that cases like this still happen. I thought the law was pretty settled on this issue. I agree with this guy and the courts have tended to as well.
"The clinical condition of the child is so serious that quality-of-life considerations should take precedence over a prolongation of life. Therefore, the parents have a right to decide what they think is in the best interest of their child."

posted by Rachel 5/07/2003
. . .

. . .


web site traffic statistics