Guns and Stem Cells
Republicans got good news on two fronts today as the Supreme Court took the D.C. handgun case and scientists developed yet another promising method for creating stem cells without destroying embryos.
It’s about time the Supreme Court got around to clarifying whether the 2nd Amendment means anything. Judge Silberman (who, in a sane universe, should have gotten Justice Kennedy’s seat on the Supreme Court when Judge Bork fell) wrote a masterful opinion that will be very difficult for the Supreme Court to dispute. This should give Republicans a victory, reminding us of the importance of the Supreme Court, going into the 2008 election and put gun control back near the top of the list of important issues. An aversion to gun control has always helped the GOP in the past and could do nothing but help in this instance.
The stem cell development is important in that it makes the pro-life stance on the issue more tenable on political grounds. There has been a rush to call anyone who opposes the destruction of embryos on ethical grounds as “anti-science” (which is rubbish since scientists regularly must jump through numerous ethical hoops before they are allowed to start experimenting). Those calls can now be muted as yet another promising alternative has been discovered that doesn’t include the thorny issues of life and cloning.
~~~Thomas
Addendum:
From the comments, Ross shares this article from NRO:
In the highly contentious political battle over federal funding for stem-cell research, one cannot help but note that of all the current presidential candidates, only Governor Mitt Romney embraced an unambiguous and principled stance on the alternatives, incorporating them into his proposed domestic policy.
Who can forget. Aside from Chris Matthews’ shenanigans, it was perhaps the most memorable moment from that first debate.
~~~Thomas
November 21st, 2007 at 1:37 am
Father Thomas Berg, writing today in National Review Online, had this to say about the new stem-cell research findings and Gov. Romney:
“In the highly contentious political battle over federal funding for stem-cell research, one cannot help but note that of all the current presidential candidates, only Governor Mitt Romney embraced an unambiguous and principled stance on the alternatives, incorporating them into his proposed domestic policy.”
(Father Thomas Berg, “The Future Is Now — Stem-cell debate changes,” National Review Online, 11/20/2007)
November 21st, 2007 at 9:31 am
Well it has been the mantra since time immemorial that the Second Amendment only guaranteed the states’ right to own firearms. As laughable as that was, political correctness caused more than a few federal circuits to adopt this construction. The dam began to crack in 1989 when noted law professor Sanford Levinson wrote the article “The Embarassing Second Amendment” in 99 Yale Law Journal. Next ,a few lower courts realized that they, too, could not see the King’s New Clothes, and found an individual right to own a firearm, but they could not overcome stare decisis in their circuits. Judge Silberman and the DC circuit, however, were not the first to find this supposedly new interpretation. The Fifth Circuit ruled this way a number of years ago. Even the venerated Lawrence Tribe (who writes all of the con-law books) has “revised’ his treatises with respect to the Second Amendment (thereby falling from grace with the liberal establishment) While I do feel that pro-gun folks have four solid votes on this case. Kennedy is the swing. About ten years ago, I saw a short clip on the internet where a lawschool studen (misinformed as usual) smugly said to Justice Kennedy “will you please confirm to all of these anti-gun control people that the Second Amendment does not give them the right to own a firearm?” Kennedy, answered that the question was not really that clear and that there were arguments which support either side and that he would not be surprised if the Second Amendment did protect an individual’s right to own a firearm. Now, I am summarizing from memory for what that is worth. But my impression of his response sitting her today is that Kennedy does believe that there is a Second Amendment right to own a firearm. But I also feel that he will allow such restrictions in the name of “public safety” as to make the right meaningless in practice. I hope I am wrong on that last part. By the way, it was great to see the smile fade from that law student’s smirk.
p.s. all of you pro-gun folks watching this Supreme Court case. Do you now feel that it was wiser to boot Harriet Meyers and put in Samuel Alito? I do.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:38 am
I am sorry about the mispellings. I tend to type “stream of consciousness” and I don’t do that well either. The cite for the Yale Law Journal is “89 Yale Law Journal.”