Scotus Blog

The Second Amendment has always put me in a quandary, but Scalia's opinion was not an honest attempt at sorting it out. It was a sophistical, political decision of just the type that he rails against.

Judges, with entirely one-sided ruling records, are asked, during Supreme Court confirmation hearings, whether they can be impartial. They're not impartial. It's not even close.

So much for Scalia's much-vaunted "originalism," which advocates reading the Constitution as it would have been understood at the time of the Founding.

While the gun lobby may crack open that bottle of champagne, this is a victory that thrives in theory, but one that, in practice, can only be condemned.

A government that cannot protect people should not deprive them of the right to protect themselves -- and the the D.C. gun ban did just that.

Today's Heller decision marks the biggest triumph so far for gun rights advocates. It establishes what was for so long denied, and the the gun control debate will never be the same.

If Scalia and Stevens were competent historians, then it might be worth reading what they write. But they are not. Both offer selective readings of history to support what seem to be pre-determined positions.

Four justices did not join in the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Today, protection of the human dignity of gay men and lesbians is hanging by a slender thread on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's decision this morning to ban use of the death penalty in cases of child rape is consistent with its historical position on the issue.