Judicial Conspiracy

DC has its guns back! Bearing arms is an individual right! And, the prefatory clause (the part about the militia) is meaningless!! Scalia was let out of his cage today to write the final opinion of the Supreme Court for the year (yes it is June!!!). However, what does this mean for the political landscape.

Guns are legal and arguably, for the campaign, gunrights are officially a non-issue. On the other end of the spectra, gay marriage is legal in California. In the past month, two issues that have divided the nation particularly in the last 10 years have, for all intents and purposes, been removed form the political sphere. The right can point to the Supreme Court and claim at least a meager victory (the court overruled an outright ban but states are still allowed to regulate weapons possession). The left can point to the California Supreme Court and can also claim a meager victory (California is the most populous state in the union so their recognition is giant leap especially when paired with policies like that of NY where we recognize gay marriages from other states, but it is still only a state and there are at most 48 others that don't offer similar marriages). [f.y.i. 48 takes Massachusetts into account]

Since these issues have both achieved victories, there is no need to rally behind them or to speak of a major change in the law. And, both these decisions have or will prove uncontroversial for those except the extremists.

Are the courts conspiring to control the political scope of this election?
Is it coincidental that these two victories occurred simultaneously?
Finally, will either case lead to a trend? (Will other states follow in California's footsteps? and/or will someone make an issue of the gun-ban in Chicago?)

I'm just excited for my BEAR ARMS!!!!

Leaps and Bounds

Trying to accomplish anything in the law comes with one caveat. THE LAW IS SLOW. Today, the Supreme Court released a decision in the Exxon-Valdez case. For those not familiar with the facts... you were obviously not self aware in the 80s. TWENTY YEARS AGO some drunken sailor plowed into a rock in Alaska and spilled a lot of precious oil and hurt a bunch of seals. The decision today focused on one of those uniquely American court practices of punitive damages. That is, damages that have no real legal or factual basis (surprisingly Juries have no remorse giving money away from large companies even without any reasonable basis to do so). The court for many reasons (including the fact that many of the people affected have either died or moved away from the location affected) felt that $2.5 billion a top a relatively generous sum was too much.

Much of the legal argument part is boring. I just want to highlight that it took twenty years!!! Plus, I'm sure there is still a long way to go like distribution of the rest of the money, etc. Plus I think the otters are arguing for specific performance; they want Exxon to bring them fish instead of money. Any suggestions as to who their lawyer should be?