Stephen, get your vision checked.

"In my view," writes Justice Breyer, in his dissent of today's SCOTUS decision upholding our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

So Constitutional rights should be conditional, it seems, according to Justice Breyer. At least that's the implication. By saying that there's no "untouchable constitutional right" for guns in "crime-ridden urban areas" specifically, he seems to be implying that there is more of a right, or at least less of an issue Constitutionally speaking, for more affluent areas. In his "view," certain neighborhoods and areas are worthy of such rights and others less so. Never mind what the Constitution says; the Great and Powerful Breyer has spoken.

This is the height of arrogance, and "in my view," illustrates clearly why Breyer isn't worthy to be a Supreme Court justice.

The other justices who believe that their supreme wisdom supercedes that of the Constitution: John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and David Souter. I can't believe Kennedy did something right for a change.