Supreme Court considers 2nd Amendment in DC gun law case

The conventional wisdom is that federal courts have generally held that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right to bear arms via state militias (at least in all the radio commentaries I've heard today). That issue is being tested in a case heard before the court today, DC v. Heller. Get complete coverage, including audio and analysis from Scotusblog.

And if you're wondering why this debate is so heated in the United States, look no farther than my friend Gamerz Thinking, who posted a cool video that is - literally - a techno remix of gun sounds from the video game Call of Duty 4. Yes, America loves its guns enough to make a video, of a techno remix, of the gun sounds, from a military game, that simulates the use of firearms.

Supreme Court: The EPA must regulate carbon

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court decided last week that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that should be regulated by the EPA. In addition to raising the possibility of federal policy on greenhouse gases, the ruling may also empower states such as California, which has moved on its own to regulate carbon dioxide.

Ultimately, the slow march toward carbon caps and climate gas regulation in the United States is likely to run headlong into American energy habits, particularly where cars are concerned. The Wall Street Journal has an April 5 article entitled "Horsepower Nation," noting that Americans still like a lot of power in their cars, despite the rising cost of gas and greater emissions:

Car makers are getting better at using technology to squeeze out more power without decreasing fuel efficiency. But environmentalists and government regulators criticize the industry for using technology -- such as more sophisticated fuel control systems -- to boost power instead of mileage...

...Mike Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation Inc., the nation's largest publicly traded dealership chain, says fuel efficiency has consistently ranked behind cup holders and sound systems in consumer desires over the past 20 years.

A couple thoughts come to mind at this:

1. Americans still don't grasp the full extent of the threat of global warming.
2. Public policy has to lead the market, since customers simply do not select for climate impact at the point of sale.

Update 2:38pm: the WSJ Energy Roundup has a nice summary of reactions to the Supreme Court decision.

One price to rule them all

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on a case with dramatic implications for consumers everywhere. At stake is a 100-year-old law that makes it illegal for manufacturers and retailers to collude in setting prices (someone should explain that to Apple), and a decision to overturn the law could mean prices everywhere start marching up.

This excellent blog post examines the legal precedent and the potential impact in a society where consumers have been empowered to comparison shop via the internet. The author also looks at the impact of overturning this law, as internet retailers like Newegg.com may no longer be able to undercut brick-and-mortar stores (disclosure: I love shopping at Newegg):

Importantly, this case points a dagger at the heart of the most consumer-friendly aspects of the Internet. The Internet has shifted power to the consumer in two ways. First, it allows consumers to search for and gather information in a cost-effective, efficient manner. Second, it provides a low-cost means of retailing, making it easy for discounters to offer products to the public. This combination squeezes excess profits and inefficiencies out of product prices. Retail price maintenance seeks to short circuit this extremely consumer friendly process. By setting minimum prices, manufacturers can build in excess margins for themselves and for their favored retailers—prices that consumers have no choice but to pay.

This blogger clearly has his side of the issue staked out and it's my only source so far. Can anyone tell me why this would be a good thing?

Update 4:47 - here's some post-argument analysis from SCOTUSblog

Gun rights headed to the Supreme Court

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For the first time, a federal appeals court has decided in favor of the individual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Until now, the text of the amendment has been interpreted to support the right to bear arms as part of an organized militia (read: National Guard) and not an individual citizen. However, ongoing lobbying from the National Rifle Association, other gun rights organizations, and pressure from the Bush Administration's Justice Department appears to have convinced the court to reconsider.

The decision is not likely to stand, because the rift between Appeals Courts' decisions will send this puppy right up to the Supreme Court. This is what they like to call a "landmark case."

What do you think of the court's decision?

Even conservatives support the Bill of Rights

He may not be a progressive's favorite Supreme Court justice, but Antonin Scalia is showing a surprisingly strong resistance to overreaching executive power during the "War on Terror." The article explores Scalia's firm but narrow commitment to the Bill of Rights and his subsequent impatience with the Bush administration's claim of expansive executive power in times of war.

I think it's also interesting because, as I understand it, many of the drafters of the Constitution thought the Bill of Rights unnecessary - or more specifically, redundant. It doesn't look so redundant now...