Blowhard, Esq. writes:
In today’s New York Times editorial page, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment. In doing so, he attacks the majority decision in DC v. Heller written by Scalia:
In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.
That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power.
So binding legal precedent, arrived at by following the well-established rules of due process, is nothing but a “propaganda weapon”? Good to know. The next time someone cites the majority holdings in Griswold, Roe, and Planned Parenthood — or Lawrence and Obergefell — I’ll follow Justice Stevens’s lead and airily dismiss them as mere propaganda weapons.
Blowhard, Esq.
Callowman
Sherbrooke
Eddie Pensier
Enzo Nakamura
Epaminondas
Fabrizio del Wrongo
Fenster
Brundle Guy
Glynn Marshes
Paleo Retiree
Atypical Neurotic
Question Lady
Sax von Stroheim
Sir Barken Hyena
The Mistaken
Uncouth Reflections 
Supposedly, lawyers are trained to think logically and critically. And you’d assume lawyers elevated to the Supreme Court would be among the very best logical and critical thinkers. Thus, it’s surprising – astounding even – how poorly formulated Justice Stevens’ reasoning is in his Op-Ed (as you’ve clearly pointed out). Either (1) Stevens has drifted into senility, in which case someone from his circle should be preventing him from making a fool of himself, (2) he’s not now, nor ever has been, a logical and critical thinker and therefore, had no business being on the High Court in the first place, or (3) Stevens is another weak man seduced by the power of Washington into becoming another political hack.
In Bush vs Gore, Stevens wrote “… the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.” I think Stevens was looking in the mirror when he wrote his dissent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In a sense he isn’t wrong. Law is a propaganda weapon to help legitimise power. Now it isn’t just that of course because otherwise we wouldn’t put as much stock in it as we do.
In truth though both sides are wrong on this one. The constitution wasn’t meant to disallow gun control on a state level which is what Heller did.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/18/gun-control-the-second-amendment/
Granted, liberals won’t even dare touch this one since incorporation doctrine is crucial for their stranglehold on government enforced liberalism. Plus even if they were willing I think conservatives have become so enamoured with a national right to carry guns that they would rather give liberals all of the other stuff rather than risk losing their guns.
LikeLike