“The opening clause is, ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ...’ Since we no longer have a militia, the right can be abridged, or reasonably limited. However, rather than following the basic interpretative rule that all words in a statute or Constitutional provision must be considered, Scalia negates this opening clause by calling it prefatory, and therefore ignoring it, thus leaving only the second clause with its ‘right to bear arms’ language unfettered by the opening limitation.
“The problem is, it’s fine that Scalia impresses us with turning a phrase but in terms of how that will affect future court decisions, it has very little impact,” noted Urofsky, author of Dissent and the Supreme Court: Its Role in the Court's History and the Nation's Constitutional Dialogue. “Most dissents took years before they had any effect [on the court]. If Scalia’s dissents are to have any impact at all, it’s not going to be through Twitter and it’s not going to be through contemporary newspaper accounts. It’s going to be because these issues are going to come up again and if Scalia’s dissents are intellectually powerful enough, they will have an impact. If not, they will be forgotten.”
Del. Sandy Rosenberg, a Baltimore Democrat and big-time Orioles fan, has a blog post today about his relationship with Scalia, developed in annual trips to Camden Yards and to the Supreme Court. "His original intent philosophy extended to baseball," Rosenberg writes. "He was not a fan of the designated hitter."