Settled law and stare decisis

[SmarterthanYou]

How would a fool like you know since you have never read the Heller decision?

can you prove that?

For instance, Heller says you don't have the right to carry any weapon you want any place you want:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

the founders didn't define shall not be infringed as to mean 'reasonable regulations'. so here, scalia was wrong.

Heller says the only weapons protected were those in common use at the time of the ratification of the Second:

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

are you actually trying to say that the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments are not restricted by technological advances, but the 2nd is?????

Heller says that it is the Militia (of which we have none anymore) that have the right to own military styled weapons:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

purposeful misreading and intentional twisting of the context. try it again

And Heller said that the States have the right to restrict weapons within their borders:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-allows-new-york-connecticut-assault-weapons-ban/

chicago v. mcdonald applied the 2nd Amendment to the states, so you are wrong again.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Now, once again to the fucking idiot class, Heller is the "law of the land" until another case comes along. However, I would like to see some of the cases you are referring to since I am confident you haven't read them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_court_cases_in_the_United_States

US v Cruikshank
Presser v. Illinois
US v. Miller
mcdonald v chicago

state cases

bliss v. commonwealth
aymette v. state
nunn v. georgia
state v. buzzard
wilson v. state of arkansas
Salina v. Blaksley
People v. Aguilar

Mentioning the Second Amendment

dred scott
duncan v. louisiana

 

[Old Trapper]

Love it when an idiot has the "courage" to defend his idiocy;

can you prove that?

Your own words prove it fool.

the founders didn't define shall not be infringed as to mean 'reasonable regulations'. so here, scalia was wrong.

Are you saying then that bans on full auto machine guns, bans on felons from owning a rifle, bans on the mentally ill from owning a weapon, are un-Constitutional?

are you actually trying to say that the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments are not restricted by technological advances, but the 2nd is?????

What a bull shit argument. Where in the first ten articles of the Constitution, is the power to kill, or perpetrate war, advanced because of technological advances?

purposeful misreading and intentional twisting of the context. try it again

Sorry you lack the intelligence to understand what Scalia wrote. Try harder.

chicago v. mcdonald applied the 2nd Amendment to the states, so you are wrong again.

McDonald v City of Chicago was decided AFTER Heller, and changed nothing.

https://www.britannica.com/event/McDonald-v-City-of-Chicago

"McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government."

Show me where it says that the State does not have the right to restrict that ownership.

Now, your claim was that Heller overturned several prior rulings, and I asked you for examples. Why don't you have any?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Love it when an idiot has the "courage" to defend his idiocy;

Your own words prove it fool.

it actually proves that while you may have read scalias opinion, you didn't understand a single word of it.

Are you saying then that bans on full auto machine guns, bans on felons from owning a rifle, bans on the mentally ill from owning a weapon, are un-Constitutional?

the laws shouldn't exist, period. machine guns are still not banned, but they are expensive as hell which might as well equate to a ban. felons, upon serving their sentence, should have ALL of their rights restored and if they can't be trusted out in public with a weapon, they shouldn't be out in public. same for mentally ill people.

What a bull shit argument. Where in the first ten articles of the Constitution, is the power to kill, or perpetrate war, advanced because of technological advances?

its not. where did I say it was? and why are you changing the subject now?

Sorry you lack the intelligence to understand what Scalia wrote. Try harder.

you're the horse led to water, but refuse to drink.

McDonald v City of Chicago was decided AFTER Heller, and changed nothing.

you need to read the holding again, or do I need to point it out to you where the Supreme Court applied the 2nd Amendment to the states with that?

https://www.britannica.com/event/McDonald-v-City-of-Chicago

"McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government."

Show me where it says that the State does not have the right to restrict that ownership.[/QUOTE]its right there, are you having trouble understanding?

Now, your claim was that Heller overturned several prior rulings, and I asked you for examples. Why don't you have any?

that was YOUR claim, not mine. try again, mental midget.

 

[Lesh]

Kavanaugh has (probably correctly) claimed that stare decisis is a fantasy

Anything can be overturned if the Justices in the majority want it changed

 

[Micawber]

You aren't a lawyer. I am. Your opinions are meaningless. A null set. This thread doesn't even exist!

You wouldn't know stare decisis from staring at your cousin's tramp stamp, rube.

 

[Teflon Don]

This is a good example of the ignorance of the right wing. SCOTUS does not write laws. They interpret laws according to the Constitution. Of course, KillerText does not understand the difference between "interpret", and "Write", anymore then TiffyDon understands the concept of "settled".

Where in the US Constitution was the Supreme Court given the power to interpret the Constitution?

 

[Teflon Don]

Heller and Citizens United are settled law

 

[Lesh]

You aren't a lawyer. I am. Your opinions are meaningless. A null set. This thread doesn't even exist!

You wouldn't know stare decisis from staring at your cousin's tramp stamp, rube.

Is it your contention that a majority of justices can't change ANY decision made previously?

If it is..you are no lawyer

 

[Micawber]

Is it your contention that a majority of justices can't change ANY decision made previously?

If it is..you are no lawyer

You think if I say something that's not true I'm not a lawyer? I daresay you are not a lawyer. LMFAO

checkmate.

 

[Lesh]

Heller and Citizens United are settled law

And can be overturned like any other decision.

Why in the hell would ANYONE support Citizen's United anyway?

 

[Lesh]

You think if I say something that's not true I'm not a lawyer? I daresay you are not a lawyer. LMFAO

checkmate.

Dude if you think that Justices can't overturn just about any SC decision if they have the majority...you aren't a very GOOD lawyer anyway.

 

[Micawber]

And can be overturned like any other decision.

Why in the hell would ANYONE support Citizen's United anyway?

Yes and no. Things that can be overturned, we are in the realm of very narrow.
There is the law. It's not like a clean slate

 

[Micawber]

Dude if you think that Justices can't overturn just about any SC decision if they have the majority...you aren't a very GOOD lawyer anyway.

Bullshit. You left yourself some wiggle room however.

Let me know when Marbury v Madison is overturned. The law is sedimentary rock.

Be amazed now, quote me later.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Of course law may be that settled.

If the super majority of society thinks X is so, SCOTUS won't go with Y.

is that really your standard?.......once upon a time a super majority thought separate but equal was a solution.........once upon a time a super majority believed that marriage meant the union of a man and a woman........once upon a time a super majority thought killing your unborn children was a bad thing.........

 

[Lesh]

Bullshit. You left yourself some wiggle room however.

Let me know when Marbury v Madison is overturned. The law is sedimentary rock.

Be amazed now, quote me later.

So your claim is that Roe can't be overturned?

 

[Micawber]

So your claim is that Roe can't be overturned?

No. I attacked your silly proclamation, not the judicial tensile strength of Roe.

Try again.

 

[Damocles]

I don't disagree with you.

Stare Decisis is a fantasy that has only occasionally been honored.

Roe V Wade is absolutely in jeopardy

This is what you get when you have Republicans running anything

Forget that at your peril

What do you think would happen if Roe v Wade was overturned? (It won't be, John Roberts has spent many long years setting himself up to become the "new Kennedy", so no change of balance will happen).

 

[Lesh]

What do you think would happen if Roe v Wade was overturned? (It won't be, John Roberts has spent many long years setting himself up to become the "new Kennedy", so no change of balance will happen).

You're relying on ROBERTS to save Roe?

Good fucking luck

 

[Damocles]

You're relying on ROBERTS to save Roe?

Good fucking luck

I'm not relying on anybody to save anything. I'm not particularly worried about Roe v. Wade. I notice you didn't answer the question.

What do you think would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned?