I read the whole thing, and the footnotes. Good work!

Great article. Have always said the interesting part of Heller is the dissenting opinion. How can people like Stevens, obviously highly educated, be such frauds? Thank heavens we did duck the bullet.

Simple. Stevens, and elites like him, just don't trust the unwashed masses with the ownership and possession of firearms.

Some elitists don't trust the masses with free speech. Others don't trust the masses with the ownership of property. We in the masses have to be eternally alert because these elites will strip us of everything if they can.

David:

Thank you. While it does not please me at all to note the serious inconsistencies in the Heller dissent ... it pleases me to no end that you have studied the dissent and have pointed out the inconsistencies.

The Stevens dissent in Heller, had it become law, would have ... done so on grounds that were demonstrably, clearly, and repeatedly wrong, with errors that could best be attributed to carelessness approaching arrogance and at worse to
indifference because the conclusion was predetermined.

That is an incredibly powerful statement indeed.

Absolutely excellent! Clear, thorough, concise, it puts several stakes through the heart of Justice Stevens' Heller dissent.

Justice Steven's legal "reasoning" can be revealed by the interview in which he stated to the reporter "that he was troubled by the fact that Yamamoto, a highly intelligent officer who had lived in the United States and become friends with American officers, was shot down with so little apparent deliberation or humanitarian consideration. The experience, he said, raised questions in his mind about the fairness of the death penalty."

Do you think that there is any possibility that this article will ever come to the attention of any of the 4 dissenting justices?

"[D]emonstrably, clearly, and repeatedly wrong, with errors that could best
be attributed to carelessness approaching arrogance and at worse to
indifference because the conclusion was predetermined."

OK, Dave, don't hold back now - tell us how you REALLY feel about Stevens' dissent in Heller.

Excellent article!

Do you think that there is any possibility that this article will ever come to the attention of any of the 4 dissenting justices?
Posted by: Jeff at January 13, 2010 05:50 AM

Yes, if you mail them each a copy.

Honorable Associate Justice John Paul Stevens
Honorable Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Honorable Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer
Honorable Associate Justice David H. Souter (Retired)

United States Supreme Court
One First St. N. E.
Washington DC 20543

I'm sure the reply briefs will cite it. I'd suggest not mailing it to the dissenters. Instead send one copy to Justice Scalia, and let him have the pleasure of giving them copies just before the Court votes.

Good analyis as usual for you.

It is clear that the 4 dissenting justices in Heller didn't want to recognize the right but there is no way to put together a winning argument when the facts are against you.

So, you deny, ignore, willfully construe, and otherwise try to decieve your way to victory.

That any SC judge would do this over the 2A when the history is now so clear is amazing no matter how much they want to deny the right.

I'm mean, wouldn't it be embarrassing to have your analysis so easily destroyed?

Where can I find the source of this Stevens' quote about the attack on Yamamoto?

It is referenced many places on the web, a more complete description is at http://dreadnaught.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/justice-john-paul-stevenss-perplexing-view-of-the-death-penalty/, with a link to a New York Times profile of Stevens at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin from which the statement was gleaned.

Thanks. Amazing. How do people lose their common sense and get so confused?

"carelessness, arrogance, predetermined, indifference."

how does such a personal attack on Justice Stevens' integrity help your credibility at the Court, considering four justices signed onto it and the other five probably don't care for having their colleagues insulted?

Maybe it felt real good to write that, but it wasn't smart if you want people to take you seriously.

If -- and it's not a very big "if" in my opinion -- Mr.Hardy's analysis of the dissent in the Heller case is accuurate, then it speals volumes about the decline in quality of the clerks hired by some of the Justices.

I did not attend one of the "top tier" law schools, however, I am sure this sample of legal reasoning and writing would not have passed muster. Or maybe it is that my school was more intent on teaching law than promoting political correctness.