The law and the jungle

When the Chipotle chain announced its intended gun ban by saying the sight of law-abiding citizens carrying guns caused customers "anxiety and discomfort," Breitbart News reacted with this:

Remember the main reason given for the proposed amendment to the Indiana constitution banning gay marriage? It was that it would bebetter than the state's a;ready-existing law banning same because a judge could come along and invalidate the law. A constitutional ban would be more permanent.

Well, tell that to the good citizens of Oregon:

If you go to Brighton, Mich., better watch your !@#$% mouth:

Bring back the firing squad?

Sorry, sir, thank you for your service and all that, but you don't get a pass:

I have mixed feelings about this:

CHARLESTON, Mo. - A Missouri man who was sent to prison 13 years after his robbery conviction due to a clerical error was set free by a judge Monday, reports CBS affiliate KFVS.

Two late-breaking opinions from the Supreme Court this morning, and they're both doozies. First up, the First Amendment:

The Supreme Court has upheld the right of local officials to open town council meetings with prayer, ruling that this does not violate the Constitution even if the prayers routinely stress Christianity. 

Those of us in the "it means what it says" camp who resist the doctrine of a "living Constitution" must nonetheless acknowledge that interpretations of the document must be flexible to the dictates of changing circumstances. The Fourth Amendment, for example, protects us against "unreasonable" search and seizure. Courts have always been a little too deferential to police power by letting them search through everything in our possession at the time of arrst. That has seemed reasonable to a majority of justices in the past.

Forgive me if I don't join in the hand-wringing by the New York Times over the botched execution of Clayton Lockett:

Yes, please, as quickly as possible: