Chicago Appellate Court Upholds City's Gun Ban

Liberal judicial activists have upheld the unconstitutional law that made guns of any type illegal in Chicago:

A Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel, which rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association.

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

Again, liberal judges made the argument that the second amendment doesn't apply to states:

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

“The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states,” U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, upholding lower court decisions last year to throw out suits against Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois.

This case shows how dangerous for the second amendment it would be to have judicial activists in our courts. Sotomayor, Obama's Supreme Court pick, seems to have the same judicial beliefs as the appellate court in Chicago.

California Supreme Court Actually Acts Like, Well, Judges Not Legislators

Yes, I know that this happened a few days ago, but so much has been happening that it slipped through the cracks. The state supreme court of California shocked the country:

The California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld same sex marriages that were already performed but upheld voters' rights to ban gay marriage through the state constitution.

The court surprised me by actually recognizing their role of not making law but interpreting it.

Chief Justice Ron George, writing the 6-1 decision, said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

The court is the same one that last May ruled it unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to marry. That led to the constitutional amendment offered on the ballot last November.

"After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.

Why didn't they come to this conclusion last year when they made new law by overruling the measure passed by the people of California of not allowing gay marriage? The 6-1 vote was surprisingly one-sided, too. Maybe they saw the backlash that rained down on them last time, and it was too much to put on themselves again. Could they have realized that we want judges to intpret not make law? I can only hope the this will begin a chain reaction of change away from judicial activism.

Obama's Supreme Court Hopeful Sonia Sotomayor: Courts Are Where Policy Is Made

Judge Sonia Sotomayor shows exactly what many people are afraid of from an Obama Supreme Court appointment:



No, Sonia, policy is made by the other two elected branches of the government. This kind of judicial activism is what has taken away our rights and freedoms. Many judges act as if they are the ones that know better than everyone else. The overturn the will of the people because of their own beliefs even when they have no right to do that.

They overturned gay marriage bans even after the people voted to keep marriage between man and a woman in many states like Massachusets and California.

They've taken away some of our freedom of religion. Students cannot pray on school grounds anymore.

These are just a couple of examples of how liberal activists judges have wrecked havoc on our Bill of Rights. We don't need another judge who thinks that they are the lords of the law and can mold public policy as they see fit.