Practically in the world we live in should the court rule this way? I don't know.No they should not. Federal judges are inherently unaccountable and should therefore exercise great restraint in their decisions but judicial activism from the left has greatly eroded that sort of thinking over the past half-century or so. Congress could, of course, remove from the purview of the federal courts the sorts of things they should not be meddling in but the left would have the meltdown of the century if Congress were to exercise that power.
I've not had time to more than skim a few of the opinions but:
Heller - Proper decision but it's frightening that four of the nine don't believe that Americans have the right to won firearms, our Bill of Rights should not be placed in jeopardy at the whim of unelected federal bureaucrats. It's encouraging that the majority opinion explicitly found a right to possession in the home for self-defense as this will vitiate nonsense like the "trigger-locked and/or disassembled" nonsense in DC. Look for the crime rate in DC (well the crime rate outside of government buildings anyway) to plummet.
Rothgery - No one but lawyers will care but accused persons won't have their right to counsel placed in jeopardy by fine-line distinctions drawn by local politicians, judges & law enforcement. This is a good thing, the system needs to be both fair and conprehensible.
Exxon - Punitive damages are a significant problem in our system. Juries are too willing to award them and too willing to overindulge when awarding them. Everyone who suffers misfortune views that misfortune as a winning lottery ticket. As a signal to lower courts to reign in excessive punitive damage awards I like this. Hopefully this is the beginning of a pro-business tide in the courts.
Giles - Giles kills his girlfriend then argues that her prior statements against his interest made to police before he killed her are not admissible because they violate his Constitutional right to confront hostile witnesses ... and the Court agrees. And libs think the system is biased against the criminals?
Kennedy - The Court continues a long line of cases which see them drifting left on the issue of the death penalty. Consider the court's previous prohibition of the death penalty for: the rape of an adult woman (
Coker); muder committed by a mentally impaired person (
Atkins); and murder committed by a minor (
Roper); in light of this line of cases Kennedy (barring the death penalty for raping a child) hardly comes as a surprise. Money quote I think by the majority, "When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint." I expect with that sort of sentiment on the Court we'll see a complete abolition of the death penalty in the next few years. I believe Justice Kennedy earlier this term or last upheld the Constitutionality of lethal injection as not being cruel and unusual punishment while here he finds an execution by that method to effectively be cruel and unusual punishment. Time for a retirement.
Bismullah - Although the libs are cheering, this is a dangerous precedent and will likely have the unintended consequence of significantly worsening the treatment of captured persons. The Court left open the possibility of simply handing detainees over to foreign governments. Does anyone really believe, for example, that the Chinese Muslim dissident about the be removed from Gitmo will receive better treatment if the administration simply hands him over to China? Not good that. I predict many summary executions of soon-to-be former Gitmo detainees by their home countries as I can't imagine that we're going to just put these folks back on the street. If
Bismullah pokes the proverbial camel's nose of rights under the US Constitution under the tent flap of the battlefield this decision will effectively eliminate the ability of US troops to take prisoners during wartime, I don't think it goes that far but it's clearly walking down that road. Consider that under this decision a battlefield execution of an enemy combatant might be legal but the detainment of the same person on US soil in live form might not ... unless they've been read them their Miranda rights, have been provided an attorney, and have been extended all of the Consitutional protections afforded to accused persons in the US. This effectively overrules all previous law regarding the detainment of persons captured in battle. In the long run this case may be a footnote or an utter disaster, I'd wager the latter but time will tell.
Meacham - Opens the door to a new flood of "age discrimination" litigation by placing new burdens on business. Will ship more jobs overseas at the margins. Not good.
Defenders of Wildlife - In declining to hear the appeal by Defenders of Wildlife the Court quite sanely placed border security above lefty tree huggers and haters of progress. Of course it was merely a well-settled question of the Executive's right to delegate authority so there was really no decision to make but the court deserves a round of applause for not opening this can of worms. Next term when they slap down the ban on sonar use off the California coast we'll be rolling in the right direction with respect to endangered species.
Others you want comments on KK?
