This morning, John McCormack noted several outlets highlighting a New Republic piece by Jeffrey Rosen, with the headline: "The Case Against Sotomayor." McCormack ended his post writing:

"We eagerly anticipate Rosen's latest take, in which we will surely learn that in reality Sotomayor has a first-class temperament and intellect."

He hasn't gone that far, yet. But Rosen now says: "Sotomayor should be confirmed."

The boss, from his Blackberry:

"Where policy is made."

That's how, in 2005, reported Supreme Court pick Sonia Sotomayor characterized the Court of Appeals, where she now serves. It's undoubtedly even truer, in her eyes, about the Supreme Court. The debate over her confirmation could be an interesting "teaching moment"--a politically important teaching moment--for constitutionalists who would beg to differ from Sotomayor's vision of the appropriate role of the federal judiciary.

By now everyone is well aware of the Supreme Court’s determination in the Heller case, announced in its last session of the term, that Washington, D.C.’s effective ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The two big questions now occupying the legal community are whether this right will also be recognized against state governments (which it likely will, eventually), and what magnitude of gun regulations, short of a categorical ban, will be deemed constitutionally permissible (which the opinion leaves ambiguous). But fewer have asked what effect Heller will have on other types of weapons beyond handguns. For those of us living in D.C. but not quite ready to start packing heat, the question of whether the city’s categorical ban on Taser weapons (which are likewise illegal in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and certain cities and counties) passes constitutional muster becomes extremely interesting. Justice Scalia’s opinion in Heller cites a Founding-era dictionary definition of “arms” as “anything that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another,” which would seem to encompass other weapons beyond firearms. While the Heller Court explicitly rejects the argument that “only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment,” the opinion as it relates to handguns (as opposed to other sorts of firearms) seems to turn on the fact that “the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon.”

Does this mean that the Taser, relatively new technology compared to handguns, is insufficiently “quintessential” to be constitutionally protected--despite the much lower governmental interest in limiting its use as compared to lethal weapons? And, even if it is not constitutionally required to allow Tasers, wouldn’t it be in Washington’s best interests as a matter of public policy (given how hard the city fought to limit handgun use), to voluntarily legalize them and give its citizens a less deadly option for self-defense? I dare to remain hopeful.

Today's handgun ruling from the Supreme Court is good news for women. As Megan McArdle says, the gun issue is a feminist issue because “guns are the only weapon that equalizes strength between attacker and attacked. It's the only time when men's greater speed, strength, and longer reach make no difference; if you pull the trigger first, you win.” She argues that feminists should "push for widespread gun ownership."

I agree with Megan completely. With a gun, a woman has a fighting chance to defend herself in her home, or, if permitted to carry a concealed weapon, on the street. As 126 female state legislators and academics wrote in an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in support of overturning the handgun ban (H/T Volokh Conspiracy), the

prohibition against handguns and immediately serviceable firearms in the home effectively eliminates a woman’s ability to defend her very life and those of her children against violent attack. Women are simply less likely to be able to thwart violence using means currently permitted under D.C. law. Women are generally less physically strong, making it less likely that most physical confrontations will end favorably for women. Women with access to immediately disabling means, however, have been proven to benefit from the equalization of strength differential a handgun provides.

Now that D.C. women have all of their constitutional rights, they can protect themselves rather than relying solely on others. Feminists should be proud. Child rapists may not get their due justice, but perhaps some rapists of adult females in D.C. will now get theirs.

The Supreme Court made a good, constitutional decision today, say bloggers, but yesterday's Kennedy v. Louisiana was a different matter. The Court ruled that convicted child rapists cannot be executed. The case was brought by Patrick Kennedy, who brutally raped his 8-year-old stepdaughter and was sentenced to death in Louisiana. Kennedy appealed, and the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's 1995 law authorizing the death penalty for child rapists.

At the SCOTUS Blog, Lyle Dennison writes, "As part of the Louisiana decision, the Court made it definite that no death sentence would be upheld for a crime against an individual, when the victim is not killed." Power Line's Scott Johnson concludes, "What punishment is, to use the Court's test, 'proportionate' to the offense. Putting questions of constitutional jurisprudence to one side, it would take an oaf to conclude that incarceration is punishment 'proportionate,' or death disproportionate, to the offense committed by Mr. Kennedy." The Corner's Andy McCarthy adds that the punishment is not proportional "only because we do lethal injection. If we went back to drawing-and-quartering, that might inch toward proportional."

In the opinion, Justice Kennedy concluded that rape does not compare to murder "in terms of moral depravity." At NRO's Bench Memos, Ed Whelan says that in the dissent "Alito makes mincemeat of Kennedy’s claim that rape of a child cannot be compared to murder in its moral depravity and in the severity of injury to the victim and the public. Among his observations: 'I have very little doubt that, in the eyes of ordinary Americans, the very worst child rapists--predators who seek out and inflict serious physical and emotional injury on defenseless young children--are the epitome of moral depravity.'"

Whelan also notes that "when Kennedy declaims that '[e]volving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person,' the only person whose dignity is the object of his concern is the rapist, not the victim and not other future victims." The Corner's Jonah Goldberg asks, "Are we more decent because we don't consider that a capital offense? I don't really see it."

The McCain campaign should be careful how they handle the Court's decision on handguns. While the Second Amendment in general is a winning GOP issue, the handgun aspects of it are more problematic with swing voters. In the end, this election will be decided by white females and ticket-splitting independents. The handgun issue is no huge winner among this group. McCain should applaud the decision, but tread carefully.

With that, the Cardinal is going celebrate the decision by cleaning his trusty CZ 75 P-01.

Andrew McCarthy writes that Congress must act now:

The most reprehensible aspect of the Boumediene ruling is thus Justice Kennedy’s diktat that all “questions regarding the legality of the detention [of combatants] are to be resolved in the first instance by the District Court” — as if Congress, the law writing branch of our government, had nothing to say about them.

Congress must ignore that brazen overstatement. Boumediene is a terrible decision, but all it means for the moment is that the jihadists held at Guantanamo Bay have been given the opportunity to press their cases — i.e., to seek their release from custody — in the federal district courts. The combatants have not been ordered released, and the narrow majority did not presume to prescribe a procedure for how the district courts should handle those cases.

That is the job of Congress, and it must act now. Bear in mind, even in the civilian-justice system, where the judicial competence is generally undeniable, it is Congress that enacts rules of procedure and evidence. We do not leave judges free to make it up as they go along. How much less should we do so with respect to combatant detention — a war power as to which judges have no institutional competence? [...]

Congress could provide for the presentation of evidence by hearsay, proffer, and affidavit — with a directive that the court may not compel the government (particularly, the military and intelligence community) to produce witnesses for testimony in court. It could provide for classified intelligence to be presented to the judge ex parte, with only a non-classified summary provided to the combatant. It could require the court to give deference during wartime to the conclusion of combatant status review tribunals already conducted by the military (allowing judges to disregard those conclusions only upon a showing that the conclusion was irrational — the same standard that compels federal appeals courts, in every single civilian criminal case, to refrain from disturbing a trial court’s findings of fact).

Read the whole thing.

His take on the SCOTUS disaster here.

Although many legal scholars are celebrating yesterday's ruling as a return to the rule of law, the rule of law was never in question. President Bush has adhered to every one of the Supreme Court's War on Terror decisions, requesting and receiving congressional authorization when the Court ruled in a previous case that he did not have the authority to act on his own. Consider also the President's measured reaction in which he pledged to abide by this decision as well:

"We'll abide by the court's decision," Bush said during a news conference in Rome. "That doesn't mean I have to agree with it." The court's decision was sure to be popular in Europe, where many leaders have called for the closing of Guantanamo.

"It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented," Bush said. "And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security."

That a president would agree to adhere to a Supreme Court decision may not sound like much even at a time of war, but a look at Franklin Roosevelt's actions during World War II will put things in perspective. In Ex Parte Quirin, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether executive military tribunals could be used (instead of Article III courts) to try alien and U.S. citizen enemy combatants detained in the United States.

Six months after Pearl Harbor, U-boats landed eight German marines on American shores for sabotage missions. President Roosevelt ordered them to be tried by a secret military tribunal. Rushing into special session to hear oral argument, the Supreme Court deliberated for a single day before upholding the President in Ex parte Quirin, deferring an opinion till later. Only when Chief Justice Stone took up the task of writing did he appreciate how difficult it was to justify the Court’s precipitate decision--likening his effort to the ‘mortification of the flesh’. But there was no turning back. As Stone was labouring on his opinion, six of the eight Germans were executed--making it impossible for the Court to change its mind without condemning itself as well as the President.

Kill now, explain later: no believer in the rule of law can take pride in the Quirin story.

Readers of THE WEEKLY STANDARD might assume that Sex and the City: The Movie was just terrible. But finally, we have a man's man who recognizes the wit and charm of this wildly entertaining, if unrealistic, TV series and film: None other than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. New York's Intelligencer reports:

When Sarah Jessica Parker finished an interview with Charlie Rose on May 29, she left the Bloomberg Building, where the show is taped, and stopped for a cigarette in the courtyard. The conservative Supreme Court justice emerged from a nearby Town Car and rushed over to praise the star. “He was absolutely gushing, telling her how much he loved her show and how excited he was to see the movie,” says a witness.

Now, a killjoy Supreme Court spokeswoman is trying to knock down the story, but Justice Scalia shouldn't be ashamed. After all, you don’t have to be socially liberal to enjoy this sharp and designer-shoe-filled guilty pleasure.

(H/T Above the Law)