Apparently, Justices no longer have to fact check their Supreme Court opinions or dissents. Justice Stevens’ dissent had two rather major errors:
Comment on to previous post points out at p.2 of the Stevens dissent he refers to NFA and US v. Miller: “Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that…”
Same mistake the 9th Circus made years ago and had to issue a new opinion, since Miller was never convicted — commentators noted this was pretty suggestive the court hadn’t bothered to read Miller before citing it. First thing you look for in reading a case is what happened below, and what the Court do to that. Very first thing.
I’d add that at 41 he refers to:
“In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating the ‘National Guard of the several States,’ Perpich 496 U.S. at 341 and nn. 9-10.”
Reading that part of Perpich v. Dodd: It says in 1901 President Roosevelt called for reforming the militia. He didn’t create the National Guard (where would he have had the authority?)
How much should I trust the rest of his dissent?
