Supreme Court Question For Those On The Left

[meaner gene]

you also said "REPEATIDLY" so what are your other examples??

We could go through it one by one by one, but the 12th overturned parts of Article 2.
The 17th overturned parts of Article 1.

 

[Lesh]

It was settled law, but that doesn't mean it's etched in stone.
They hadn't even heard the case, and if it was etched in stone
they wouldn't have taken it up.

Like the 2A

 

[progressive hunter]

We could go through it one by one by one, but the 12th overturned parts of Article 2.
The 17th overturned parts of Article 1.

THATS NOT OVERTURNING,, THATS AMENDING AS THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS,,

 

[Meister]

Like the 2A

No, RvW is not an Amendment, Lesh.
Amendment is a bit more complex.

 

[meaner gene]

thats based on constitutionality,,

Wrong. They said that the law was constitutional, But the regulations exceeded the authority of the enacted law, not that it exceeded the authority of congress, or violated the constitution.

The USSC also interprets the meaning of law, such as they did in Bush v Gore 2000.

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong. They said that the law was constitutional, But the regulations exceeded the authority of the enacted law, not that it exceeded the authority of congress, or violated the constitution.

The USSC also interprets the meaning of law, such as they did in Bush v Gore 2000.

everything congress does is controlled by the constitution,,

 

[eagle7-31]

I would rather have a court that respects legal precedent

Then Plessy vs Ferguson would still be on the books. Try again.

 

[Lesh]

No, RvW is not an Amendment, Lesh.
Amendment is a bit more complex.

It is an interpretation of a right.

And when the 2A is found to only pertain to the militia as it states… you will whine

But hey… precedent no longer matters

 

[progressive hunter]

It is an interpretation of a right.

And when the 2A is found to only pertain to the militia as it states… you will whine

But hey… precedent no longer matters

thats not what the 2nd A states,, its very clear as to the "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" not a militia member,,

 

[Lesh]

thats not what the 2nd A states,, its very clear as to the "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" not a militia member,,

We’ll regardless of what you think, a more liberal court could say it is ALL about the milita and precedent he damned

 

[Missourian]

Precedent is DEAD

And that could well remove the 2A from the gun issue

Bad precedent is dead.

I can show you the right of the People to Bear Arms in the Constitution.

Show me the right to an abortion.

If it WERE there...wouldn't that right also extend to taking a vaccine?

Weren't you a proponent if forced vaccination?

Can't have it both ways.

 

[progressive hunter]

We’ll regardless of what you think, a more liberal court could say it is ALL about the milita and precedent he damned

its not what I think its what it says and backed up by the writings of the people that wrote it,,

and thanks for showing that a liberal court is doing things illegally and violating their oaths,,

 

[BluesLegend]

And when the 2A is found to only pertain to the militia as it states… you will whine

The SCOTUS and well the entire legal profession disagrees with you.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Saying it's not the supreme courts job is to ignore law from Hammurabi onward. Stare Decisis is important from the stability of the law. You can't have legal principles change from day to day. You could have a court that overturns Roe one day, and then reaffirms Casey the next day.

When has that happened? That is pure speculation of what could happen and ignorance of the way SCOTUS decisions are made.

 

[Missourian]

It is an interpretation of a right.

And when the 2A is found to only pertain to the militia as it states… you will whine

But hey… precedent no longer matters

I'm sure that will happen someday regardless of Roe being overturned.

If there is one thing I've learned...leftists have zero compunction in changing the rules to get what they want.

Can't win the electoral college...try to change the rules. Can't get your voters to the polls on election day...change the rules. Don't want your AG charged with Contempt of Congress...change the rules. Conservatives get a majority on the court...attempt to change the rules by packing the court. Can't get your radical agenda passed...attempt to change the rules by deep sixing the filibuster.

Which leads us inextricably to the fact...it was leftists changing the rules that got us to the junction we have reached.

Obama couldn't get his judges confirmed...so Harry Reid changed the rules...thought he was so smart.

And look at how that turned out.

What has happened to Roe (bad from your perspective ... Good from mine) can be traced back to that one rule change.

I hope you've learned your lesson...but I doubt it.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama couldn't get his judges confirmed...so Harry Reid changed the rules...thought he was so smart.

Then we bitch slapped the Dems by replacing Ginsburg with a conservative justice.

 

[Missourian]

Then we bitch slapped the Dems by replacing Ginsburg with a conservative justice.

Exactly.

Democrats WOULD have had significantly more leverage if they hadn't nuked the filibuster.

That is exactly why it exists.

It protects the minority from the majority.

If I were a Democrat...I'd be working to shore up the filibuster ... not weaken it.

The total failure of Biden and the Democrats has nearly ensured that they will be the minority party in 2023.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I would rather have a court that respects legal precedent

/——-/ You mean legal precedent like Dread Scott and others 13 Overturned Supreme Court Cases. You mean like that?

 

[BluesLegend]

Exactly.

Democrats WOULD have had significantly more leverage if they hadn't nuked the filibuster.

That is exactly why it exists.

It protects the minority from the majority.

If I were a Democrat...I'd be working to shore up the filibuster ... not weaken it.

The total failure of Biden and the Democrats has nearly ensured that they will be the minority party in 2023.

Dem's chickens came home to roost and they are butthurt.

 

[Missourian]

Which is why the senate gets to determine a judges qualifications, and if his judicial philosophy comports to what they approve of in the highest

You are half right.

They get to determine if they are qualified...NOT if their philosophy jibes with the the flavor of the month in Congress.

There is no doubt Roe was a terrible decision from a constitutional perspective. The Justices came to a moral decision, then manufactured a Constitutional argument to cloak it in.

That is not how Supreme Court decisions should be reached.