Eric RubenThinkers

District of columbia v. heller is, for the conservative jurist, lacking in two hallmarks of judicial conservatism: (1) an unbiased review of the evidence about the meaning of the second amendment and (2) given ambiguity about that meaning, judicial restraint.

District of columbia v. heller is, for judicial conservatives, was such that scalia's opinion deployed an unbalanced historical analysis, reached a questionable conclusion about a constitutional right, and failed to defer to the judgments of elected officials.

District of the Columbia vs. Heller is the first time that self-defense is taken to be 'central' to an individual's second amendment right. Previously, most courts had understood the functioning of a 'well-regulated militia' (which appears in the amendment), not 'self-defense' (which does not), to underlie the right to 'keep and bear arms.

Judicial conservatism is guided by these tenets: Deference to elected officials in the absence of a clear constitutional mandate and a healthy appreciation for possible public safety consequences of judicial overreach.