Misfiring on all cylinders
University of Baltimore Law Professor Kenneth Lasson goes on a predictably leftist, completely unscholarly tirade about the 2nd Amendment in the Sun this morning. And after this complete reinterpretation of the concept of precedent, he drops this gem:
The main problem I have with Lasson's arguments is the fact that he only gives one side of the story. He wishes to talk about the financial backing of the NRA without adequately exploring the financial backing of gun grabber groups like the Brady Campaign. What about Michael Bloomberg's illegal campaign to fight firearms? Yeah, no mention of that.
Nor did Lasson mention his work as an "Expert" for the Second Amendment Research Center. That outfit is supported by The Joyce Foundation, an outfit with a notorious anti-gun bias, and whose grant list includes grants to both the Bloombergers, Handgun-Free America, and the Violence Policy Center, which of course supports the outright ban on handgun ownership amongst other out there policies. Lasson's cover-up of his affiliations (and the Sun letting him get away with it) is appalling.
Lasson also completely whiffs on the concept or precedence. Under Lasson's worldview, the Supreme Court's decision in 1939's United States v. Miller is sacrosanct on the issue and cannot be challenged. Of course, there are a number of fallacies with the concept of precedence. Why should a decision be continued to upheld when it is wrong? Under Lasson's warped logic that means that Brown vs. Board should never have been issued as it stood due to the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. And under the same logic, Tileston v. Ullman and Poe v. Ullman would have precluded the decision in 1965's Griswold v. Connecticut...and that case paved the way for Roe v. Wade . I don't hear Lasson arguing the concept of precedence in those cases because the decisions do not match with his leftist worldviews.
I am thankful only that Lasson's concluding statement lets me know that Lasson himself realizes he is a hack and should not be taken seriously. My concern is that my taxpayer dollars pay for a a professor to be this intellectually dishonest...
To read something educational about the Second Amendment, check out the source list put out by überblogger, UCLA law professor (and good lord willing future Supreme Court Justice) Eugene Volokh.
The justices should recognize that law professors are not always straight shooters.I couldn't have said it better myself. Because Lasson drapes his warped views on the subject around nothing but his own background as a hack masquerading as a law professor.
The main problem I have with Lasson's arguments is the fact that he only gives one side of the story. He wishes to talk about the financial backing of the NRA without adequately exploring the financial backing of gun grabber groups like the Brady Campaign. What about Michael Bloomberg's illegal campaign to fight firearms? Yeah, no mention of that.
Nor did Lasson mention his work as an "Expert" for the Second Amendment Research Center. That outfit is supported by The Joyce Foundation, an outfit with a notorious anti-gun bias, and whose grant list includes grants to both the Bloombergers, Handgun-Free America, and the Violence Policy Center, which of course supports the outright ban on handgun ownership amongst other out there policies. Lasson's cover-up of his affiliations (and the Sun letting him get away with it) is appalling.
Lasson also completely whiffs on the concept or precedence. Under Lasson's worldview, the Supreme Court's decision in 1939's United States v. Miller is sacrosanct on the issue and cannot be challenged. Of course, there are a number of fallacies with the concept of precedence. Why should a decision be continued to upheld when it is wrong? Under Lasson's warped logic that means that Brown vs. Board should never have been issued as it stood due to the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. And under the same logic, Tileston v. Ullman and Poe v. Ullman would have precluded the decision in 1965's Griswold v. Connecticut...and that case paved the way for Roe v. Wade . I don't hear Lasson arguing the concept of precedence in those cases because the decisions do not match with his leftist worldviews.
I am thankful only that Lasson's concluding statement lets me know that Lasson himself realizes he is a hack and should not be taken seriously. My concern is that my taxpayer dollars pay for a a professor to be this intellectually dishonest...
To read something educational about the Second Amendment, check out the source list put out by überblogger, UCLA law professor (and good lord willing future Supreme Court Justice) Eugene Volokh.
Labels: Education, Guns, intellectual dishonesty, Sun follies
posted by Brian Griffiths at 9:17 PM
1 Comments:
As any normal rational person will find that precedent only matters when it supports any person’s particular issue especially the lefts. At that point it is sacrosanct, any other time it is irrelevant as it should be unless the circumstances are exact which in most cases they are not. Of course “case law” has not gone through the years of following that common law has which our modern lawyers believe are one and the same. While the common law is based on tradition, custom and long following by judges, case law is willy nilly and subject to change with even the minor change of makeup of the same court. Of note to readers the common law has been around for well over a thousand years while case law was completely made up and invented in the 1870 by a person who had only practiced law for a few years. Of course what is of interest to that is that under the founders understanding and the courts up until the late part of the last century only one branch of government could change common law and guess what, it was not the judiciary.
Post a Comment
<< Home