Paul Stevens Reminds Us Why Liberals Can’t Be Judges

Former Supreme Court judge Paul Stevens has taken the debate on guns one step further and is calling for a total repeal of the Second Amendment. Writing in The New York Times, he says he’s inspired by the kids who can’t find a safe space to learn without getting shot at by other kids. They’re calling for raising the age to when a person can own a firearm, an age obviously older than themselves because, let’s face it, you can’t trust kids to have things, especially the rights to a gun and thankfully, to vote.

Stevens writes:

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Stevens’ rationale is this: At the founding of the Republic states were a little uneasy of a national army and felt someday it may want to get cute and invade one of them. So the states wanted assurance, just in case, and so the Second Amendment was included in the Bill or Rights.

Stevens thinks the Second Amendment is outdated because armies used to invade citizens is, as he says “a relic of the 18th century” even though in the 19th century the army invaded Virginia and in the 20th century armies were used in spectacular fashion in murdering citizens the world over. But not in the US, of course, since it’s one of the few countries where the military doesn’t do that sort of thing and (oh, by the way) the citizens in the US have a right to bear arms.

But really. Is an army the only conceivable armed threat to citizens? What about criminals, Judge Stevens, are they a “relic” of the 18th century too?

We should be more than happy that Stevens is not on the court anymore. Not so much as to what he thinks of the Second Amendment but how he thinks period, he writes in the Times:

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

Okay. Stevens dissented in Heller because he doesn’t believe in “an individual right to bear arms.” Where does that come from, his interpretation of the Second Amendment or his personal preference? If it’s his reading of the law then why does he want the amendment repealed since to him it doesn’t provide the right to bear arms in the first place? Since he wants the amendment repealed then he must concede that there is a right to bear arms in that amendment (why write the article) in which case his dissent in Heller was fraudulent. Does the reader agree or am I the stupid one?

This is why you can’t have liberals on the Supreme Court. They don’t interpret laws — they just come up with their own sense of right and wrong and forget about laws. How does a Supreme Court judge look at a bunch of wrongheaded hippy-wannabes and be inspired to write about repealing an Amendment in the Bill of Rights? Talk about getting caught up with the times.


If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.  And be sure to check out our new MeWe page here.

If you appreciate independent conservative reports like this, please go here and support us on Patreon.

Related Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×