View Single Post
Old 04-04-2013, 11:17 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,542
iTrader: 1 / 100%

Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Conservatives have been in the majority for quite some time now, yet Roe v. Wade still stands. It might matter in some future case, but not when it comes to legislators going against the current precedent.
That's because conservatives tend to be very observant of stare decisis, to the point that they tend to be reluctant to overturn obviously bad decisions. A perfect example is Slaughterhouse. In that case, the Court claimed that the 14th Amendment's PorI clause did not apply to, e.g., the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, a direct contravention of the very words of those who wrote the amendment. If any decision deserves to be overturned, it's that one. And yet, the conservative majority on this Court in McDonald, when given the opportunity to reinstate the PorI clause to its rightful place in Constitutional law, refused to do so. Thomas' concurrence is the only artifact of McDonald that gives support to the real meaning of the 14th Amendment's PorI clause.

This will not be the case with a liberal set of justices on the Court. Such a set of justices will be happy to ignore stare decisis if doing so allows them to achieve the utopia they envision themselves being empowered to help create.

Similarly, we are talking about legislators directly challenging Heller and McDonald which are now established law (even Sotomayor said so), not about expanding 2A or any new scope. Remember, we've already won by far the most difficult part. Kachalsky can (should) seal the deal on "bear."
Sotomayor said so in her confirmation hearings before McDonald was heard. Despite her claim that Heller was established law, she contradicted herself by siding against McDonald. That should make it plain to you that "justices" such as herself will ignore stare decisis if doing so allows them to achieve the outcome they desire.

Almost all current attacks on us are technicalities: cosmetic features, capacities, taxes, registration, licenses, etc. Those are really administrative in comparison to "keep" (Heller, McDonald) and "bear" (hopefully Kachalsky).
This is quite incorrect. Those "technicalities" can and will neuter the right if allowed to stand in the proper combination. That makes them more than mere "technicalities".
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote