Your news article \"Gorsuch dives into the fray on first day emphasized the originalist constitutional legal philosophy of the newest Supreme Court justice. Neil Gorsuch made repeated references to the plain words and plain texts of the law he was considering. He asked, Wheres the ambiguity? And, Wouldnt it be a lot easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute? Like the late Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch claims to decide cases based on the literal words of the law, not its purpose or how it has been interpreted by lower courts. <\/p>\n
That brings us to the plain unambiguous text of the Second Amendment: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. For too long well-regulated meant any firearm any place any time and militia meant individual person. <\/p>\n
Your story said the Supreme Court decided to take no action on a California case in which gun owners sued when they were denied a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Eventually the Supreme Court, including Gorsuch, will have to rule on a Second Amendment issue. Then we will see if he actually follows his originalist philosophy and uses the plain unambiguous meanings of well-regulated and militia in his decision. If he doesnt then we can conclude his originalist philosophy is a pretext used only to rationalize his ultra-conservative political ideology just like Justice Scalia before him. <\/p>\n
Bob Barth, Chicago <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Continue reading here: Your news article \"Gorsuch dives into the fray on first day emphasized the originalist constitutional legal philosophy of the newest Supreme Court justice. Neil Gorsuch made repeated references to the plain words and plain texts of the law he was considering. He asked, Wheres the ambiguity? Continue reading
\nHow will Justice Neil 'Plain Words' Gorsuch tackle the Second Amendment? - Chicago Tribune<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"