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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      9 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 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.