“I didn’t inhale.”

My first prediction is that the good guys will win on the basic question – does the Second Amendment mean what it says? – though not necessarily by the huge margin Countertop is predicting. I see either a 5-4 or 6-3 victory, with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts and Alito endorsing the individual rights view, Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer rejecting it, and Justice Ginsburg doing something random.

On the second question of what test to apply, my guess is that the SC will decline to rule on that question altogether. I floated that idea earlier today on Patterico’s site, figuring that since DC’s gun ban is so extreme and so draconian, and would clearly flunk any conceivable test, the question of which test to apply in Second Amendment cases generally is not yet ripe for review. I’m more confident of that view now, after reading the transcript, in which Chief Justice Roberts appeared to volunteer as much on p. 44:

Well, these various phrases under the different standards that are proposed, “compelling interest,” “significant interest,” “narrowly tailored,” none of them appear in the Constitution; and I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard. Isn’t it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can’t take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these — how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?

I’m not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard. I mean, these standards that apply in the First Amendment just kind of developed over the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up. But I don’t know why when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case?

Maybe the question was rhetorical, maybe the Chief Justice is the only one on the court who doesn’t want to decide the standard now, yadda yadda yadda. It just doesn’t seem to me like he’s champing at the bit to decide a subtlety of future Second Amendment jurisprudence that is totally unnecessary to decide the instant case. Nor should he, in my opinion. Let’s save that issue for harder cases in the future, where the constitutionality of a statute may actually turn on whether that statute is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest, or merely “substantially” related to a “legitimate” one. That is not this case.

On another note, I was relieved to see Justice Scalia save Alan Gura from an own goal on the question of what “infringed” means:

JUSTICE STEVENS: So we can — consistent with your view, we can simply read this: “It shall not be unreasonably infringed”?

MR. GURA: Well, yes, Your Honor, to some extent, except the word “unreasonable” is the one that troubles us because we don’t know what this unreasonable standard looks like.

JUSTICE SCALIA: You wouldn’t put it that way. You would just say it is not being infringed if reasonable limitations are placed upon it.

MR. GURA: That’s another way to look at it, Your Honor. Certainly –

I trust that “that’s another way to look at it” was just a more refined way of saying “um .. yeah, that’s the ticket.”

Lastly, I will say that if the Second Amendment ends up surviving by a 5-4 margin, with Justice Kennedy as the pivotal vote, I’ll have to seriously re-think my longstanding hatred for Arlen Specter for his role in helping to bork Bork. Bork shouldn’t have been borked, but better to bork Bork than to (literally) decimate the Bill of Rights.

UPDATE: Patterico notes another near own-goal on guru’s part, also prevented by the same referee. Maybe the soccer analogy is wrong; this looks more like the infield fly rule.

From today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch: circumbendibus. Nice editorial on Heller, too.

Given the recent news (olds?) on Barack Obama’s wacky brand of Christianity, you’d think that those idjits who harped about “Barack Hussein Obama” as a secret Muslim would be feeling rather embarrassed these days. You’d think wrong. It doesn’t matter that their original story was baseless, silly and 100% wrong. All that matters to these guys is months ago, they told us something really crappy about Obama’s religion, and now the MSM has “vindicated” them by showing that yup, there really is something crappy about Obama’s religion. It’s almost as if some nuts had claimed in 2004 that John Kerry wasn’t really a Vietnam veteran at all, or that he had enlisted in the North Vietnamese navy rather than ours, and then claimed vindication when the SwiftVets surfaced and told us what a crappy U.S. sailor he had been while serving in the Vietnam War.

Tom Maguire has a good piece on the more sensible and deserved attacks on Obama’s disturbingly cozy relationship with Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright. Of particular interest is his note that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth originally surfaced early in the primary season, only to be resoundingly ignored. My sole criticism of the group had long been the “fact” that they sat on the news until Kerry’s nomination had been sewn up. The silliest angle of all, I think, is that Obama should get a pass on Wright because he engaged him as a spiritual adviser, not a political one. That’s like saying “Don’t judge me by Mr. God-Damn-America, voters, I only look to that guy to find out what I’m supposed to really believe, not what I’m supposed to say to you to get elected.”

XRLQ Exclusive
Must credit, or I’ll really not like you.

Eliot Spitzer stunned reporters today by holding a news conference in which he was originally expected to announce his resignation, but did not. I’ve obtained a transcript of the speech he originally planned to deliver.

Throughout my life, I have grappled with my own identity, who I am. As a young child, I often felt ambivalent about myself, in fact, confused. By virtue of my traditions, and my community, I worked hard to ensure that I was accepted as part of the traditional family of America. I married my first wife, Silda, out of respect and love. And together, we have three wonderful, extraordinary daughters. If she has any pride whatsoever, Silda will soon choose to return to East Carolina, or whatever the hell they call that backwater state she comes from.

Yet, from my early days in school, until the present day, I acknowledged some feelings, a certain sense that separated me from others. But because of my resolve, and also thinking that I was doing the right thing, I forced what I thought was an acceptable reality onto myself, a reality which is layered and layered with all the, quote, “good things,” and all the, quote, “right things” of typical adolescent and adult behavior.

Yet, at my most reflective, maybe even spiritual level, there were points in my life when I began to question what an acceptable reality really meant for me. Were there realities from which I was running? Which master was I trying to serve?

I do not believe that God tortures any person simply for its own sake. I believe that God enables all things to work for the greater good. And this, the 49th year of my life, is arguably too late to have this discussion. But it is here, and it is now.

At a point in every person’s life, one has to look deeply into the mirror of one’s soul and decide one’s unique truth in the world, not as we may want to see it or hope to see it, but as it is. And so my truth is that I am a horny American. And I am blessed to live in the greatest nation with the tradition of civil liberties, the greatest tradition of civil liberties in the world, in a country which provides so much to its people, and one which has at least one state where I can legally get my rocks off to my heart’s . . . err, make that Silda’s wallet’s …. content.

Yet because of the pain and suffering and anguish that I have caused to my beloved family, my parents, my wife, my friends, I would almost rather have this moment pass. For this is an intensely personal decision, and not one typically for the public domain. Yet, it cannot and should not pass. I am also here today because, shamefully, I engaged in adult consensual affair with a totally hot chick who charges up the wazoo. This violates my bonds of matrimony. It was wrong. It was foolish. It was inexcusable. But damn, it was worth every penny I paid for it.

And for this, I ask the forgiveness and the grace of my wife. She has been extraordinary throughout this ordeal, and I am blessed by virtue of her love and strength. I realize the fact of this affair and my own sexuality if kept secret leaves me, and most importantly the governor’s office, vulnerable to rumors, false allegations and threats of disclosure. So I am removing these threats by telling you directly about my sexuality.

Let me be clear, I accept total and full responsibility for my actions. However, I’m required to do now, to do what is right to correct the consequences of my actions and to be truthful to my loved ones, to my friends and my family and also to myself. It makes little difference that as governor I am a horndog with money to burn. In fact, having the ability to truthfully set forth my identity might have enabled me to be more forthright in fulfilling and discharging my constitutional obligations.

Given the circumstances surrounding the affair and its likely impact upon my family and my ability to govern, I have decided the right course of action is to resign. To facilitate a responsible transition, my resignation will be effective on April 1 of this year. I’m very proud of the things we have accomplished during my administration. And I want to thank humbly the citizens of the state of New York for the privilege to govern.

Puppy, Say Allah and the Uncleblender have more.

UPDATE: Another resignation.

UPDATE x2: Somehow, Google this speech ended up ranking this speech #1 for the search terms “spitzer resignation speech.” Those looking for the real thing can go here, instead.

John Hinderacker wants L. Brent Bozell to shut his pie hole from now through November. I’m OK with the idea in principle, but why stop in November?

California’s home schooling laws have sucked for as long as I can remember, but a lot of people are just now figuring that out. The Governator wants to amend the laws in question. Great idea, if he can pull it off. Otherwise, Californians who wish to home school their children basically have three options:

1. Flout the law, but do a better job raising and educating your kids than the Long family appears to have done for theirs, and trust that the Education Police will have more important things to do rather than go after you.
2. Waste a few thousand dollars and a year of your life taking worthless education classes to get a teaching credential.
3. Take advantage of a little-known U.S. immigration law that allows all Californians to immigrate here without a visa.

There’s been a fair amount of buzz in the blogosphere, with varying quality. Over at Q and O, Dale Franks has a pretty good piece, while his co-blogger McQ has a downright loopy one. Gabriel Malor strains logic conclude the law is no big deal since parents are free to file a “private school affidavit” the state is under no obligation to accept, and probably won’t. By that logic, he might as well argue that DC’s handgun ban is no big deal, either, as any DC resident can possess a handgun by becoming a cop.

Hate to rain on y’all’s parade, but John McCain is only running against one Democrat this fall, not two.

I quit two all-American organizations today: Gun Owners of America and the American Bar Association. Readers of this blog know why I quit GOA, but GOA itself doesn’t since the GOA rep didn’t bother to ask. Too bad. I guess they figure they don’t need my help to enjoy 30 more years of no compromise, and about as much in the way of results. I must admit, however, that quitting two organizations in a single day that both have the word “America” in their names does make me feel a tad unpatriotic. What am I going to give up next, Mom and/or apple pie?

For his part, the ABA rep did ask why I was quitting his organization, and then specifically asked if the reason was ideological. I confirmed that it was, but did not elaborate as to what my ideological differences with the organization were. He responded by cracking wise about the ABA being part of some international communist conspiracy. Funny how that works: an organization that purports to be neither left nor right, but the one true voice of all attorneys (so much so that they didn’t even feel the need to bother asking me if I wanted to join in the first place), somehow manages to figure out that anyone with an ideological bone to pick with them must be coming from the right rather than the left. Apparently, these guys are like their fellow Chicagoan, Barack Obama: centrists with no one to their left.

Q: If liberalism is the alternative to conservatism, what is the alternative to liberalism?

(more…)