PDA

View Full Version : Heller & SCOTUS -- who voted which way?


jg0001
May 1, 2009, 09:49 AM
See subject. Try as I might, my googling skills are failing me. Anyone have the list of who voted which way on Heller (at the SCOTUS level)? I ask with particular interest in whether or not Souter's retirement would have made any difference if it happened prior to the Heller decision. Thank you.

model67a
May 1, 2009, 10:58 AM
I had difficulty finding it too. without finding it again, I found that souter voted against the ruling on the 2A. I believ if you will search D.C. V Heller you will find the vote breakdown. Would do it for you but have to go take care of some business. Hope this helps. stay safe

grymster2007
May 1, 2009, 11:06 AM
From wikipedia

"The opinion of the court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr."

"Justice Stevens' dissent was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer."

It would not have changed the outcome.

chemgirlie
May 1, 2009, 11:20 AM
Souter's retirement won't have too much of an effect on the SCOTUS. He's pretty far left, and I imagine he'll be replaced by somebody with similar views. Unless one of the righties dies/retires (and I imagine most of them will try to hold on until Obama is out of office) not much is going to change.

Webleymkv
May 2, 2009, 08:04 PM
I don't see much changing either, the most likely Justices to be replaced (besides Souter) are Stevens and Ginsburg (due to age and health respectively) and neither of them are known to be friends of the Second Amendment.

EastSideRich
May 2, 2009, 10:56 PM
The scary thing is I can see all four of the dissenting justices (from the Heller case) being replaced in this term. I would even guess, although it's a little conspiratorial, that they will be persuaded to step down by this administration.
If they can replace 4 liberals (and just one conservative) with young, more "radical" justices who will remain seated for twenty or more years, well, you can imagine what will happen to our constitution.
We already have heard what the criteria are for His supreme court appointees:
In Barack Obama's words:

"I want my justice to understand that part of the role of the court is to look out for the people who don't have political power," Obama said. "The people who are on the outside. The people who aren't represented. The people who don't have a lot of money; who don't have connections. That's the role of the court."

“[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges"

No Barack; it's not the role of the court, and not how you should be selecting Supreme Court Justices!!

Tom Servo
May 2, 2009, 11:55 PM
Something else to consider: Souter was a Republican appointee who turned out to be quite liberal.

It's entirely possible that an Democratic appointee could end up being a friend of the 2A, or at least inclined to stick with the Constitution as written.

RDak
May 3, 2009, 07:48 AM
I agree Tom. I don't see how anyone could be much more liberal than Souter.

Ginsburg was arguably more conservative than Souter for pete's sake IMHO.

And that ain't very conservative!! :D

carguychris
May 3, 2009, 08:20 AM
Something else to consider: Souter was a Republican appointee who turned out to be quite liberal.

It's entirely possible that an Democratic appointee could end up being a friend of the 2A, or at least inclined to stick with the Constitution as written.
+2. Historically, SCOTUS justices have a habit of not turning out exactly the way their nominating president had hoped.

Secondly, in today's highly charged political climate, it's difficult for any justice to make it through the Senate if they've made any sharply definitive rulings on a highly controversial "wedge issue", regardless of which way the ruling went. So far, the Obama administration has mostly tiptoed around the gun-control issue, so I expect we won't see any nominees with a strong anti-gun record. Time will tell, though.

csmsss
May 3, 2009, 12:14 PM
Historically, SCOTUS justices have a habit of not turning out exactly the way their nominating president had hoped.This is only partially true. With the exception of Byron White, essentially ALL of the justices appointed by Democratic presidents in the last few decades have been reliably anti-constitutional, whereas numerous justices appointed by Republican presidents have been toxic. Besides Souter, there has been John Paul Stevens (Ford), Warren Burger (Nixon), Earl Warren(Eisenhower). Besides White, has there been even one justice in the last half century nominated by a Democratic president who did not reside in the SCOTUS' liberal wing?