Political Insider

How about this argument:

With this 5-4 decision, the Democrats are just one supreme court nomination away from taking away your guns.

If you can make this argument for abortion rights, you can make it for gun rights.

The decision leaves way too much wiggle room for encroachment. Guns will remain an issue.

Are you kidding? This is a great election issue for the Republicans. It was only a 5-4 majority. If Obama wins with both houses having Democratic majorities, it is a sure thing that his SOTUS picks would be just like the four dissenters in this case. Which means sooner or later this right will be challenged again and no doubt go the other way.

McCain should be blanketing the airwaves with ads about this as there are a lot of moderate Dems and independents who own guns.

The problem with Audient's argument is that in effect, on the vast majority of 5-4 decisions, only one justice's vote -- Kennedy's -- matters. So McCain makes a difference only if Kennedy (or one of the justices on the left) dies or resigns. Obama makes a difference only if Kennedy (or one of the much younger justices on the right) dies or resigns.

On abortion rights, Audient's argument makes a lot of sense -- one or more liberal justices will likely leave the court in the next four years. On today's decision, one of the five on the right (including Kennedy) would have to go, and that's a lot less likely.

Thus, on gun rights, the choice of president in 2008 is highly unlikely to make a difference.

As a 5-4 decision this means that the make up of the future court is critical to preserving our right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is NOT "off the table". Obama's history says that he would appoint judges who would strike down Heller.

-Oh, and should we start calling Obama "The Inartful Dodger" now? He now says that his staff telling the press last year that he was for gun control was "inartful". Since when has been being "artful" with the truth a virtue?

Thus, on gun rights, the choice of president in 2008 is highly unlikely to make a difference.

It always makes a difference who is in the White House with the makeup of SCOTUS. In the next 12 months, perhaps Obama won't be able to radicalize the Court. However:

- Quite likely, the "liberal" judges on the court have been holding out for a Democrat President and Democrat Congress before going to out to preserve their seats as liberal. If Obama wins I expect all 4 to go within the next few years. That means they'll be replaced with MUCH younger, and probably MUCH more liberal justices who will put their stamp on the Court long after Obama leaves office.

- The so-called "conservative" justices ain't exactly spring chickens, either and if Obama wins in 2008 it's very likely he'll win in 2012 as well. Anyone want to guarantee that none of them will retire or pass away over the next 8 years?

Um, no.

1: It was 5-4. "All Obama needs is one appointment to take your gun rights away."

2: It was very narrow. "The Court agreed that DC residents have a right to have guns. It didn't say anything about YOU. Vote for McCain so that the Court will protect YOUR rights, too."

Tim Russert was only 58 when he shockingly passed away. Only one just is under that age: Roberts at 53.

Alito is 58. And look at the rest of the conservative block, Thomas is 60, Scalia is 72.

"Swing" justice Kennedy is 71.

Then looking at the rest, Souter at 68, Breyer at 69, Ginsburg at 75, and Stevens at 88.

In four years, a lot can change, or very little. Jimmy Carter, for instance, didn't get a chance to appoint anyone. But can anyone expect that to happen again? Sure, it is an easy call that Stevens at 88 may go imminently. But Scalia at 72 is hardly a spring chicken. Not that I wish ill will on any of our justices, of course.