Contrary to Dahlia's view that the majority opinion "ignored" the decision in Miller, the fact is that even Justice Stevens, joined by the other three dissenters, came right out and acknowledged that the "collective rights" theory that so many judges thought Miller supported was a dead letter. Face it: the "collective rights" legal fiction was an artifact of a politically-driven jurisprudence that has thankfully died out in favor of actual scholarly inquiry.

I said before that the result of Heller would have many leftist legal commentators wondering how so many judges got this wrong for so long. The fact is, the historical research clearly supports the majority's position. Even a cursory review of the voluminous briefs submitted on both sides in this case told everyone that, and Dellinger himself acknowledged that the individual-rights view had won by the time of oral argument. Why is Dahlia feeling like this is such a surprising result? Seems to me that her policy preferences have clouded her ability to fairly weigh the literature.

Sadly, by making this a 5-4 decision, the dissenters have essentially turned Heller into the Roe v. Wade of the right. You can damn well guarantee that every Republican senator from here on out will make Heller a litmus test for prospective Supreme Court justices, giving the Left a taste of their own medicine. Congratulations, guys, you just gave McCain a powerful talking point.

But if the 5-4 decision had gone the other way, the GOP would still yell for gun fanatics to vote republican to get more right-wing activists on the SC, to overturn the decision. Face it - pandering on wedge issues like guns and abortion is the GOP's modus operandi.

Upholding the Constitution is not pandering. And "overturn!" is exactly what I'm hearing from Democrats now. Stop polishing your halo.

Unlike guns, halos don't need polishing. (I don't have either, though.)

As if pandering on wedge issues is not the Democrat's modus operandi! Gracious.

I was expecting either Justice Souter or Justice Breyer to sign on to the majority opinion, making it 6-3 or 7-2 and thus blunting the perceived threat that gun rights were but a difference of one vote. But no, they stuck out for a 5-4.

Considering that the "collective rights" view of the 2d Amendment was seriously argued in the briefs (although abandoned at oral argument by D.C., wisely), I am surprised that the dissenters would not manage a "concurrence in part" on that issue, since all the Justices explicitly rejected the "collective rights" hokum in favor of the individual rights view. I guess they considered that issue so well settled that it wasn't even worth addressing in any real depth. As I said above, that is what is blowing Dahlia's mind, because when briefs were being filed you might be led to think that the "collective rights" view thought to be espoused by Miller was a defensible position. Now she can't understand how that house of cards so suddenly and utterly collapsed. The reason is quite clear: the "collective rights" crowd never seriously engaged the subject. Period. And that's a lesson for the future.