The decision rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The Hawaii Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion on Wednesday declaring that its state constitution grants individuals absolutely no right to keep and bear arms outside the context of military service. Its decision rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, refusing to interpolate SCOTUS’ shoddy historical analysis into Hawaii law. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the ruling on this week’s Slate Plus segment of Amicus; their conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

  • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
    22110·
    11 months ago

    The conservatives on the supreme court are crap historians and even worse judges.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      1385·
      11 months ago

      Originalism is nothing more than a mechanism for the Supreme Court to undo past precedent they don’t like. Welcome to the new lochner era.

      Hopefully we end this one like we ended the last, with a wave of socialism and a tough president willing to pack the court.

      • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
        571·
        11 months ago

        Sorry Loving v Virginia, it didn’t used to be widely understood that the equal protection clause would forbid inter racial marriage bans. After all, both white and black people are forbidden from marrying other races by those laws. There, equal. That’s how it was historically understood, heck it was illegal in 16 states still at the time and widely disapproved of.

        But this presumes origialism is some coherent philosophy in the first place, instead of an excuse for partisan hackery cherry picking by Heritage Foundation stooges to get the conclusion they want.

        Count me in favor of packing the court, not like there’s any integrity to jeopardize. More to lose by doing nothing while they continue to rampage.

        • cogman@lemmy.world
          301·
          11 months ago

          The next two civil rights I’m guessing we lose are gay marriage (Obergefell) and contraceptive access (Griswold). Obergefell because it was already close and hating anyone that’s not cis is in vogue now on the right. Griswold because it was determined on exactly the same lines as Loving and Roe (In fact, Griswold is what underlay roe) and there’s enough religious nuts out there that feel like contraceptives are sinful.

        • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
          19·
          11 months ago

          The Senate already changed the number of justices to 8 for a year. I don’t see why it would be wrong to add extras after they admitted the count doesn’t matter.

        • crusa187@lemmy.ml
          2·
          11 months ago

          This is such a great argument for why we must pack the court to fix this injustice.

          Do nothing, and we will surely suffer the partisan revisionism. Pack the courts, and there’s at least a chance to right the ship.

      • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
        6·
        11 months ago

        In practice, “Originalism” refers to a quality of the judgements. Each ruling is its own original interpretation of the Constitution very clearly independent of any others.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        11·
        11 months ago

        Hopefully we end this one like we ended the last, with a wave of socialism and a tough president willing to pack the court.

        Given the current crop of politicians moving through the state and federal seats, I’m not holding my breath.

        • cogman@lemmy.world
          2·
          11 months ago

          Yeah, it’s not going to be anytime soon. And I really don’t know what will change things.

    • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
      81·
      11 months ago

      The liberal judges on SCOTUS still recognize 2A, though maybe with a few more restrictions. You wouldn’t see them pass this decision.

      • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
        51·
        11 months ago

        I don’t know how they would have decided on this specific case, but I’m happy to see anyone standing up to the extreme extent the modern court has taken things with the second amendment. DC vs Heller, which started this nonsense not allowing basically any effective gun control legislation to stand, was a close decision, 5-4. The dissenting opinion was even written by a conservative registered republican, appointed by a republican president (John Paul Stevens, yes he was considered a conservative appointee, but looked more liberal over time as the court got more extreme around him): In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court’s judgment was “a strained and unpersuasive reading” which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had “bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law.”

        Our current judicial extremism on gun rights is out of control. More recently a gun control law that had stood for a hundred years in New York was struck down. And yes it was 6-3 with all the liberal justices strongly dissenting. Our current interpretation of the second amendment is an extreme modernist interpretation twisted by people like the Federalist Society and NRA, with plenty of money from gun manufacturers and other interests flowing in.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen