This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

-Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution

Of all the articles, clauses and sections of the Constitution, it can be argued that the Supremacy Clause is the most direct and unambiguous. "Shall be the Supreme Law of the Land" is pretty conclusive. And yet one of the most confusing and disputed areas of the law is the preemption doctrine - particularly the concept of implied preemption. Today, Adam Liptak writes about an important case on preemption to be heard in the Supreme Court:

Digby points out that Linda Greenhouse, the NYTimes Supreme Court reporter for many many years, is hanging up her pen. Her last column recalls the importance of defeating Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court:

It has made a substantial difference during these last 21 years that Anthony Kennedy got the seat intended for Robert Bork. The invective aimed at Justice Kennedy from the right this year alone, for his majority opinions upholding the rights of the Guantánamo detainees and overturning the death penalty for child rapists — 5-to-4 decisions that would surely have found Judge Bork on the opposite side — is a measure of the lasting significance of what happened during that long-ago summer and fall.

Very true. It reminds us that the Senate should not be a rubber stamp for ANY President. While I really enjoyed Jeff Toobin's book on the Supreme Court, titled "The Nine," I was annoyed by his acceptance that the Senate has no actual say in who is seated on the Court:

Via NPR, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the court's first African American Justice, would have turned 100 today.

Check out this clip -- billed as a "lost interview" between Marshall and Mike Wallace. Though it's undated, Marshall talks about Adam Clayton Powell's controversial support of Republican president Dwight Eisenhower and the Democratic Party's failure to act on segregation in the South.

Update: D.C. v. Heller has been released. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Anton Scalia, has affirmed that the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The opinion is here.

I will update with selected quotes below as I go through the 157 page opinion. First quote:

Bump and Update: The Court did not issue an opinion today in D.C. v. Heller. Scotus Blog says the Court announced all remaining decisions will released tomorrow at 10:00 am ET.

*****

Original Post

Awaiting the Supreme Court's Second Amendment Decision

Will today be the day the Supreme Court issues its long-awaited opinion in D.C. v. Heller, deciding the constitutionality of D.C.'s handgun ban and settling the question of whether the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms?

Several court watchers think so. Concurring Opinions believes it will be authored by Justice Anton Scalia, who has yet to write an opinion in the March sitting cases. Heller is also the only case remaining among the March sitting cases. [Hat tip Instapundit.][More...]

Via Scotus Blog: The Supreme Court decided Kennedy v. Louisiana today, holding that "the death penalty for child rape is unconstitutional if the defendants' acts were not intended to cause death." The decision was 5-4.

The Court has released the opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana (07-343), on whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits states from imposing the death penalty for child rape, and, if not, whether Louisiana’s statute fails to narrow the class of offenders eligible for the death penalty. The ruling below, which upheld the state law, is reversed and remanded.

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion. Justice Alito dissented, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

The opinion is available here. The Court categorically says the death penalty is forbidden for crimes that do not result in death. [More..]

In his dissent in yesterday's Boumediene v. Bush decision, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

The critical threshold question in these cases, prior to any inquiry about the writ’s scope, is whether the system the political branches designed protects whatever rights the detainees may possess.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is Roberts the judicial minimalist. And so he is when discussing the Great Writ. But not always. For example, in the Parents Involved school desegregation cases, Roberts trampled the "system the political branches designed." He struck down the systems designed by the charged political branches in Seattle and Louisville to deal with that issue. It seems Chief Justice Roberts is a judicial minimalist when it favors the result he wishes to reach. Of course Roberts is no judicial minimalist, he is a Legal Realist. More . . .

This is totally cool:

America's first female Supreme Court justice unveiled a videogame project last week to teach children how courts work, saying she wanted to counter partisan criticism that judges are "godless" activists.

Sandra Day O'Connor, 78, who served as U.S. Supreme Court justice from 1981 until her retirement in 2006, said she ... got involved with developing the project called "Our Courts" out of concern over public ignorance about the judiciary and partisan attacks on what should be an independent institution.

Can't argue with this:

She said the only way to preserve an independent judiciary was through public education, which she said was failing to produce citizens with enough knowledge about the three branches of U.S. government -- legislative, executive and judicial.

After kids learn how to steal cars by playing Grand Theft Auto IV, they can learn what happens after a car theft arrest by playing Our Courts.

"60 Minutes" featured Justice Anton Scalia tonight.

He's a very personable fellow. Among the highlights and lowlights so far:

• torture is not punishment when you are trying to get information out of someone

• Fetuses are not persons within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. Persons means people who can walk around. Pregnant women shouldn't be counted twice.

• He has 9 kids and 28 grandkids. He was an only child. Why? They practiced their version of "Vatican Roulette."

If you saw it, let us know what you thought.

Kennedy v. Louisiana, an important and closely followed case is being argued today in the Supreme Court: Can the death penalty be imposed as a punishment for child rape, if the child isn't murdered.

Colorado is considering such a law and I outlined the reasons against it here. I agree with this law review article (pdf)that:

First, there is a strong national consensus against imposing the death penalty for child rape. In addition, the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for the crime of rape, regardless of the age of the victim, because it does not cause death. Moreover, imposing the death penalty for child rape would fail to serve, and would likely inhibit, the retribution and deterrence functions of the U.S. penal system.

The Sex Crimes blog has a full resource page devoted to the Kennedy case. Also check out Dahlia Lathwick in Newsweek, The Supreme Penalty for Rape.

The Scotus Wiki page for the case with briefs and synopsis and other links is here.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the case involving the DC handgun bill which should decide whether the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms.

The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

...Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals' gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.

"What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?" Roberts asked at one point.

That's my problem with the D.C. bill and politicians who claim to support an individual rights' theory but then support every restrictive bill on gun rights. The "reasonableness" test is too vague and open to interpretation.

Where does reasonable regulation end and infringement on an individual's rights begin? [More...]

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the D.C. Handgun ban case, District of Columbia v. Heller, this week.

A decision isn't expected until the end of the Court's term in June. Will we get a definitive statement on the meaning of the Second Amendment?

Via Instapundit, here's a recent poll from USA Today on where Americans stand on the issue:

Nearly three out of four Americans — 73% — believe the Second Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken Feb. 8-10. Yet for decades, federal judges have seen the Constitution differently, allowing a range of gun-control measures imposed by governments seeking to curb gun violence."

TalkLeft is a strong supporter of the belief that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms.