Justice Ginsburg Once Again Shares Her Intent to Overturn Heller

Justice Ginsburg
Justice Ginsburg
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Washington, DC – -(Ammoland.com)- Last week, Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave a series of controversial interviews for which she has received nearly universal condemnation, even from the usuallyfawning establishment press.

Most of the headlines focused on Ginsburg’s derogatory statements regarding presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

However, just as important were comments signaling her intent to overturn the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Ginsburg signed onto Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissents in Heller and Breyer’s dissent in McDonald v. Chicago, which applied Heller’s protections to the actions of state and local governments.

The write-up of an interview Ginsburg gave to the New York Times contained the following:

[Ginsburg] mulled whether the court could revisit its 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. She said she did not see how that could be done.

The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said.

“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.

Curiously, the New York Times later significantly altered the part of their story pertaining to Ginsburg’s remarks on Heller, as pointed out by Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy. The altered version removed the portion regarding Ginsburg’s contention that “a chance to reconsider [Heller] could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.” The Times eventually restored the missing portion of the story, but did not provide a satisfactory reason for the alteration.

This is not the first time that Ginsburg has shared her desire to overturn Heller. On December 17, 2009, Ginsburg delivered a lecture titled “The Role of Dissenting Opinions” to the Harvard Club of Washington, D.C., a version of which was later published in the Minnesota Law Review. In the lecture, Ginsburg described Stevens and Breyer’s dissents in Heller as “appealing to the intelligence of a future day.” Insultingly, Ginsburg listed the – in her view incorrect – Heller decision, which recognized a fundamental right, alongside the notorious Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, which extinguished the rights of African Americans.

Ginsburg is wrong in her opposition to Heller’s recognition that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. There is an abundance of resources firmly establishing that the framers of the Bill of Rights intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right. Those seeking to learn more about the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment would do well to start by reading Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Heller, NRA’s amicus brief from Heller, the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” report of the U.S. Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, and The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Stephen P. Halbrook.

By insulting Trump, Ginsburg revealed her obvious preference for Hillary Clinton. While inappropriate, this is a fitting endorsement, as there is every indication that Ginsburg’s preferred candidate is on board with her plans to overturn Heller.

Clinton, or her surrogates, have repeatedly indicated that Clinton seeks to overturn Heller. At a September 25, 2015 fundraiser held at a private residence in Manhattan, Clinton expressed her disdain for Heller. An audio recording captured Clinton stating, “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

On May 7, Trump accurately told his supporters that “Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment.” In a failed attempt to refute the presumptive Republican nominee’s comments, Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin admitted that Clinton “believes Heller was wrongly decided…”

On May 30 2016, New York Magazine published an article that gave an account of a Clinton campaign event in Bridgeport, Conn. During a meeting with a family who suffered the loss of a loved in the shooting in Newtown, Conn., Clinton explained that she has already made plans for gun control with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and stated that Heller was “a terrible decision.”

Following a public outcry that spanned the political spectrum, Ginsburg offered something of an apology for her foray into political punditry, acknowledging that “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.” While Ginsburg's recent outburst is unbecoming of a Supreme Court justice, it has provided a valuable public service. Ginsburg has made it perfectly clear to the American people, that with the next president likely to appoint multiple Supreme Court justices, their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms is on the line.

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

Subscribe
Notify of
33 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Geoff
Geoff
4 years ago

Dan Groves, you, like others who challenge the corrupt government to come get your guns !! Plainly stupid bravado, when they want them, they will come and take the guns, and you nor anyone else can stop them !! You talk big, but you’re just going to be made an example of !! Don’t talk big, unless you can back, and you can’t !!

B.Zerker
B.Zerker
4 years ago

Open letter to Ruth Bader Ginsburg So RBG, you’d like to see one of the few decisions (D.C. v. Heller) the modern SCOTUS got right overturned. Just what don’t you ideologically challenged libtards understand regarding the text of the Second Amendment (2A)? It’s simple and all right there on paper for y’all to see. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Lets dissect this simple sentence to determine its meaning: What is the main purpose of 2A? Can we all agree that its… Read more »

LBJ
LBJ
4 years ago
Reply to  B.Zerker

B ZELKER, DAMN BOY, YOU ARE ONE SMART MAN !!! SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE MUCH MORE FIT TO SIT ON THE COURT THAN SOME OF THE ONE’S THAT ARE THIER NOW. ONE HELL OF A POST SIR–BUT–PLEASE DON’T HOLD BACK SO MUCH, AND JUST SAY IT THE WAY YOU TRULY FEEL————YES SIR, ONE OF THE SMARTEST POSTS I HAVE EVER READ !!! THANK YOU.

B.Zerker
B.Zerker
4 years ago
Reply to  LBJ

Thank you very much for your reply LBJ. The only way to stay out of trouble is to know the law. And I’m not talking about the millions of pages of unconstitutional “behavior control” that’s been enacted over the past century (statutory law, a jurisdiction found nowhere in the Constitution), which they can fine and/or jail us for. I’m talking about the U.S. Constitution which every government employee swears to preserve and defend. The only way to beat ’em is to know that better than they do. If you’d like to study up on it, a good place to start… Read more »

sally
sally
1 year ago
Reply to  B.Zerker

Thank you for your amazing truthful articulate summary of WTP’s rights and duties!! We have been so abused by these leftist and RINO’s its past time to respond to the fact they most certainly have betrayed us and committed acts of war against us!!

Alan
Alan
4 years ago

Re the antics of the N.Y.Times, and it’s journalistic slight of hand, as I remember, their masthead proclaimed All The News That’s Fit To Print. I submit that it should read All The News Printed To Fit.

Glock27
Glock27
4 years ago

Gentlemen, we are in a plague stricken time, a plague of corrupt mental cognizance that is abundant with self-centered, self-aggrandizing stupidity. We must at least respect their first amendment right, but we do not have to tolerate their stupidness. Just for fun try googeling “History of Democrats and the KKK” and see what you get. I think you might be astounded and this democrat ideology is built off of the ideology of the KKK.

Eric_CA
Eric_CA
4 years ago

@ Eric_Originalist,

Your right. Particularly about Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer. They are the epitome of judicial activism.

LBJ
LBJ
4 years ago

THERE ARE MANY VERY SMART POSTS ABOVE. ERIC, STEVE AND ALAN ALL HAVE VERY GOOD KNOWLEDGE OF ‘ THE RULES ‘ OF OUR PRECIOUS COUNTRY !!! GINSBURG AND THOSE OTHER TWO BROADS SHOULD ALL BE THROWN OUT… IT SORTA MAKES ONE WONDER JUST WHAT ACTS OR FAVORS OR MAY BE EVEN THREATS THOSE WOMEN HAD TO GET WHERE THEY ARE AT NOW, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY ARE ALL COMMIES !!! IF THEY DO NOT GO STRICKLY BY THE U S CONSTITUTION THEIR VERY UGLY ASS’S SHOULD GET OUT –NOW—TODAY !!!———————————PERIOD !!!

Steve
Steve
4 years ago

Ironic that Ginsburg gives Dred Scott as an example of a bad decision – is she unaware that one of the motivations for the Scott decision was to deprive black of the right to keep and bear arms?

“For if they were […] entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, […] it would give to persons of the negro race the right […] to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

– Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 416-17, 449-51 (1857)

Alan
Alan
4 years ago

Janek:

Re your comment on “Burghs”‘, while you might be the proverbial dummy, what point is there in waving your dumbness in everyone’s face.

j benizak
j benizak
4 years ago

One has a natural God given right to defend ones self. The Constitution does not take away pre- existing rights

Eric_Originalist
Eric_Originalist
4 years ago

Ginsburg and the rest of her ‘rat pack’ – aka: the racist/sexist Sotomayor; the anti-heterosexual Kagan; and the anti-gun Breyer, are all non-Originalists – that is, they have dishonored their Oaths and do not believe in and/or adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution. Rather they somehow believe that they are more intelligent and discerning than James Madison, et al, and each seeks to legislate from the SCOTUS Bench, and without having to answer to the People in this regard. Apparently when they took their Oath of Office as Justices of the SCOTUS, they all had their fingers crossed… Read more »

Gringo Cracker
Gringo Cracker
4 years ago

This harridan was confirmed by all but three (Don Nickles, Bob Smith, & Jesse Helms) Republican senators, so obviously it’s not enough that a candidate has an “R” after its name. Do your damn homework!

Eric_CA
Eric_CA
4 years ago

@Alan, Your right. She prefers the Constitution of South Africa over the United States’ Constitution.

Alan
Alan
4 years ago

As I recall from earlier comments, the lady didn’t think much of the Constitution in general, seeking “judicial wisdom” from the laws and or traditions of countries other than this country.

Don Groves
Don Groves
4 years ago

You want my weapons ? Come get them,

larry ed
larry ed
4 years ago

poster child for term limits.

hijinx60
hijinx60
4 years ago

If (when) any case involving the Second Amendment is tried, Ginsburg should recuse herself as she has already prejudged the case. She has mentioned at least once that I know of, that she planned to retire after this election, but I believe she was thinking that Killery would win and liberalism would prevail. This is just one more reason to vote TRUMP.

Eric_CA
Eric_CA
4 years ago

“Ginsburg is wrong in her opposition to Heller’s recognition that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. There is an abundance of resources firmly establishing that the framers of the Bill of Rights intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right.”

It has nothing to do with right or wrong. Nor does it have to do with be constitutional or unconstitutional. This is about Juridical Activism based on personal beliefs.

The Liberty Amendment No. 3 (Mark Levin):
Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review.

KSM
KSM
4 years ago

EVERY ONE HERE HAS NAILED IT CAN,NT FIND ANY THING TO SAY !!!

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
4 years ago

Seems to me the institution that has the last word on everything, already ruled on this issue. If it can overturn its own rulings, perhaps we need to change that. I’m thinking it should be much more difficult to overturn its own rulings that to make them in the first place. Perhaps multiple re-hearings followed by House concurrence or perhaps two-thirds agreement by state legislatures or some such. When you vote, remember it was leftists who ruined American institutions that served us well for 240 years.

candy
candy
4 years ago

She needs to be gone,to old to serve,probley doesn’t remember what she had for dinner previously.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago

, unfortunately Ginsburg has more power than the average goof.
@Hank, yes there is. There must be a high crime or misdemeanor, first. Nope, she is there as long as she lives. Gives one pause to think, doesn’t it. Or until she resigns

Hank
Hank
4 years ago

Is there an impeachment process for SCOTUS?

Jack
Jack
4 years ago

About goofy Ginsburg–stupid is a stupid does.

John in AZ
John in AZ
4 years ago

Don’t lump all Jews in with these hardcore liberal clowns. They are liberals first, Jews second. They will always choose politics over God. And in many cases, politics becomes their God, replacing the One True God.

GomeznSA
GomeznSA
4 years ago

Hmm, and here I was always taught that the role of scotus within the ‘legal’ system was ultimately determine the Constitutionality of laws, NOT to attempt to MAKE laws………………

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago

@Janek, First let me be clear that I am not agreeing with Clark. That stated, there is a very effective organization called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (hereinafter JPFO). The JPFO is staunchly a pro- Second Amendment Civil Rights supporter, and we need them in this cultural struggle.

Clark Kent
Clark Kent
4 years ago

Nope, seems we also need to be wary of anti-Semite cretins like Janek.

Janek
Janek
4 years ago

Ginsburg, Bloomberg? Why are the ‘burghs’ and all their variations after your guns? Apparently Arabic Semites are not the only ones to be wary of.

TEX
TEX
4 years ago

Sure wish this old *** would just die !

Sam
Sam
4 years ago
Reply to  TEX

Do you mean (((Ginzburg))) or Hitlery ?
Either way, I agree.