Breyer Defends Gun Owners
In Small v United States.
This is an excellent example of how the Court is not a straight political entity. The "conservatives" which should include Scalia and Thomas would be expected to support gun rights, but they were in the minority. Why? Because they took a strict constructionist view of the law. They read the words "convicted in any court" to mean ANY court, even a foreign court. They read the text of the law and judged it accordingly. "Liberals" like Breyer and Stevens read the language in a broader way.
I'm not saying that the Justices vote purely as legal interpreters (cause they most definitely have politics that affects their decisions) but there are always cases like this that surprise us.
This is an excellent example of how the Court is not a straight political entity. The "conservatives" which should include Scalia and Thomas would be expected to support gun rights, but they were in the minority. Why? Because they took a strict constructionist view of the law. They read the words "convicted in any court" to mean ANY court, even a foreign court. They read the text of the law and judged it accordingly. "Liberals" like Breyer and Stevens read the language in a broader way.
I'm not saying that the Justices vote purely as legal interpreters (cause they most definitely have politics that affects their decisions) but there are always cases like this that surprise us.
