Scalia writes for the majority. Meanwhile, John Paul Stevens demonstrates that he has absolutely no clue:

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Really? There is no evidence that the framers of the Constitution "made a choice to limit the tools available" to government to intrude into the lives of citizens?

Really?

Justice Stevens: THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CONSTITUTION. To LIMIT the power of government. That's why we have the government we have: divided into different branches on multiple levels, so that too much power can't accumulate in any one area. LIMITED GOVERNMENT. Perhaps you've heard that phrase before, somewhere, back in the mists of history.

It'd be really cool if the more left-leaning members of the Court (and Congress, and various state offices, etc) could at least make some sort of effort to be informed of basic facts and principles of American governance and history.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Kentucky's death penalty today, over the objections of Justices Ginsberg and Stevens, the latter of whom receives a well-deserved broadside from Justice Scalia:

But actually none of this really matters. As JUSTICE STEVENS explains, " 'objective evidence, though of great importance, [does] not wholly determine the controversy, for the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.' " Ante, at 14 (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, 312 (2002); emphasis added; some internal quotation marks omitted). "I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty" is unconstitutional. Ante, at 17 (emphasis added).

Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat. In the face of JUSTICE STEVENS' experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress—who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment—is dismissed as "the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process." Ante, at 8. The experience of social scientists whose studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. Ante, at 10, n. 13. The experience of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as stemming from a "thirst for vengeance." Ante, at 11. It is JUSTICE STEVENS' experience that reigns over all.

Scalia remains my favorite justice. Thank you Ronald Reagan.

Since Fred dropped out of the race, I've moved over to the Romney camp. I'm not thrilled at all with the choices available to us this year in the presidential race, Mitt included, but at least he's better than McCain, who has conservatives wary because of stuff like this:

"Wouldn't it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?" one lawyer commented. McCain replied, "Well, certainly Roberts." Jaws were described as dropping. My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is that he described Alito as too conservative.

Meanwhile, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist is worried because a prominent journalist informed him that a few years ago McCain said to him, off the record, that as president he would have to raise taxes. More recently McCain has told me, on the record, that he would never support a tax increase and, consequently, favors making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

This election is going to be a massive mess no matter who wins, I fear...