The United States Supreme Court on Thursday, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individuals right to own a gun at home for self-defense purposes. Since this landmark ruling, there has been a great amount of commentary on just what the ramifications will mean to the American society as a whole. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority (which included Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas), and whether one agrees with him or not, Justice Scalia, in interpreting the Second Amendment, does a tremendous job in providing us with an example of what the role of the Judiciary is in our system of government.
The Founding Fathers of this Nation set up 3 branches of government, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches. No one branch has more power than the other, and, to use a modern day analogy, all 3 branches together make up on big dysfunctional family. The average citizen has a general idea of what the Executive and Legislative Branches do respectively, but it’s the Judicial Branch that most often moves along our government silently and stealthly. If the role of the Judiciary is to "interpret laws," then what does that mean? Are the judges supposed to use their own interpretations? Interpretations of society as a whole? Interpretations of the other branches of government?
The answer to this question is contained within the opinion of both the Majority and Dissent of the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Scalia, ever the interpretist that he is, outlines the majority opinion by examining in detail, the exact meaning of each word of the Second Amendment as it would have been in 1789 (the year the Second Amendment went into law). The dissenting opinions, one by Justice Stevens and another by Justice Breyer, take the viewpoint, that the Second Amendment should be interpreted by today’s standards and meanings, because they see the Constitution as a document that evolves with the times.
The magnitude of this decision will be looked upon in comparison to cases like Brown v. Board of Education; Plessy v. Ferguson; Roe v. Wade; and many other landmark decisions of the Court. Yet, what strikes me most when I read this case, was the fact that Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Usually when the Chief Justice is in the majority opinion, he has the option of writing the decision for the Court. Being that this is such a landmark decision, how come Chief Justice Roberts passed the writing skills down to Justice Scalia? Many commentators consider Justice Scalia to be the best writer and legal scholar in the Court, but Chief Justice Roberts is no cupcake himself. I wonder if this is Scalia’s "legacy-case" he will leave to the American society. Long after he is gone, scholars and lawyers alike will be talking about his opinion.
To read the full text of the opinion (which I highly recommend), click here: District of Columbia v. Heller