Glenn Reynolds has a column on DC v Heller at the New York Post today, and a podcast with the lawyer behind the lawsuit. He makes a pretty good case for why the court will have difficulty doing anything but upholding the appellate court decision, and the original meaning of the Second Amendment.

Good article by Glenn. I thought about this last night, and the SCOTUS review of this issue seems like a total negative for Democrats. If the court goes with Glenn's option 3, it is the best case for Democrats and Republicans. If it goes with any other option, it will galvanize Republicans and blue collar Democrats. 40 states with "rights to bear arms" would make a pretty tough electoral college to beat.

Even if the courts side with lawabiding gun owners, many Democrat plans for gun control will have to go back to the woodshed for rework.

Why do we need a comparison baseline with the new techniques? Isn't the question really at issue "can we use these non-embryonic techniques for useful therapy," not "how do these non-embroyonic stem cells compare to the ones coming from embryos?"

From the article:

"Even though they look just like embryonic stem cells, it could be a couple of years before we find out if there are any significant differences. And the only way we’re going to know that is to compare them with embryonic stem cells."

The question shouldn't be "are there significant differences between these and embryonic stem cells," the question should be "can we use these types of stem cells to do the things we want to with stem cells?"