Gun Control & RKBA

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)

36. Stare Decisis, baby.

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:33 PM

Feb 2016

The point of the Bill of Rights was to settle certain questions of individual liberty once and for all.

But of course opinions differ, so the Supreme Court gets to rule on these individual rights now and then. Though they don't always get it right in my book, opinions such as Roe v. Wade (reproductive freedom), Texas v. Johnson (free speech), and DC v. Heller (individual RKBA) have been important milestones in upholding the Bill of Rights.

Though each Party likes to take pot shots at certain rights, both have an interest in appointing Supreme Court justices that respect the principle of Stare Decisis: that is, to give prior Supreme Court decisions serious weight as precedent. For this reason, I sincerely hope that the rights to an abortion, to burn a flag in protest, or to keep a firearm in the home for individual self-defense is not questioned again, either by Scalia's replacement or the Court as a whole.

-app

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

196 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Now that Scalia has died, are gun-lovers feeling... [View all] Herman4747 Feb 2016 OP

I love a mystery discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #1

The way this thread is written by you is nothing more than flame bait. eom. GGJohn Feb 2016 #2

Wonder why we rejoice in thinking we're going to get a banner seated, when we say ileus Feb 2016 #3

Laws passed on the basis of lies scare me. JonathanRackham Feb 2016 #4

the President supports Heller I think CommonSenseDemocrat Feb 2016 #195

I reject the binary presention of your argument. krispos42 Feb 2016 #5

Any other USSC precedents up for grabs? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #6

Actually, several are. eom MohRokTah Feb 2016 #18

Is this the game we should / want to be playing? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #21

Setting precedent then overturning it later is a long standing SCOTUS tradition. eom MohRokTah Feb 2016 #23

Such as? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #26

Plessy, then Brown MohRokTah Feb 2016 #27

But that's my point. You gave a fair spread on "Those we hate and those we love" Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #30

That's our system, which is the worst system,... MohRokTah Feb 2016 #31

Um...Lawrence v Texas overturned the ruling precident, Bowers v Hardwick. stone space Feb 2016 #155

My point remains -- Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #156

Should we have just allowed Bowers v Hardwick without a fight? stone space Feb 2016 #159

I'm happy the precedent was overturned but -- Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #160

Civil Disobedience was a part of the struggle against Bowers v Hardwick. stone space Feb 2016 #161

Because rights trump the law. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #163

I don't even know what that means. stone space Feb 2016 #170

The only ones in this forum claiming that are Controllers. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #175

I agree TeddyR Feb 2016 #178

I disagree. (nt) stone space Feb 2016 #179

You disagree that Bowers TeddyR Feb 2016 #180

Oh, good grief! stone space Feb 2016 #181

I made a number of points TeddyR Feb 2016 #182

I disagree with Scalia on both. (nt) stone space Feb 2016 #184

re: "...they would do what they can so that a Republican president can appoint Scalia's replacement? discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #7

Kind of reminds me of pottery 2naSalit Feb 2016 #12

OTOH any lurking Republicans here... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #14

BTW, have you seen Man of the Year? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #15

Can't say I have 2naSalit Feb 2016 #16

Man of the Year... It's excellent! discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #20

Thanks, I'll check it out/watch it.....nt 2naSalit Feb 2016 #24

Talk about wishful thinking by the control minded! DonP Feb 2016 #8

wet blanket discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #9

LoL!! From their posts, pretty much yup. DonP Feb 2016 #11

Now if I was a ban minded control happy Chicago or DC politician... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #13

It takes 4 to grant certiorari, not a majority. eom MohRokTah Feb 2016 #19

Thank you for the correction DonP Feb 2016 #22

Many times they know 4 would look at a case, but when it is obvious nothing would be changed,... MohRokTah Feb 2016 #25

McDonald had the support of liberals, gejohnston Feb 2016 #10

The legal interpretation of the 2nd amendment is going to be altered. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #17

yeah, only 3/4 of Americans believe it protects an individual right. beevul Feb 2016 #44

There are no electoral consequences. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #45

You are naive. beevul Feb 2016 #46

I think you're the one that is naive. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #48

I don't claim to know what justice will pass the senate... beevul Feb 2016 #49

The absolute worst it could get is Elena Kagan's take MohRokTah Feb 2016 #50

I don't actually know what the forthcoming changes will be. beevul Feb 2016 #51

I told you the worst case scenario. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #53

Did someone say you didn't? N/t beevul Feb 2016 #57

majority of Americans want the next president to PUSH gun control Jackie Wilson Said Feb 2016 #103

I doubt it. beevul Feb 2016 #104

then I challenge you to get the data...I make you a bet, for fun, that polls of young people Jackie Wilson Said Feb 2016 #107

I don't put much faith in most polls. beevul Feb 2016 #112

"I think you're the one that is naive." pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #75

I guess you do't know shit about me. eom MohRokTah Feb 2016 #76

Au contraire......your words speak VOLUMES about who you are. NT pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #77

Yep, you don't know shit about me. eom MohRokTah Feb 2016 #78

So you're written words are bullshit........ pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #80

The only written words about my beliefs in detail were written by you. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #81

This message was self-deleted by its author pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #82

Your beliefs are revealed in statements all over this thread. pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #83

Not unless the appointee is linguistically incompetent. Lizzie Poppet Feb 2016 #90

The collective right interpretation was the de facto interpretation prior to Heller. MohRokTah Feb 2016 #92

"Well-regulated" can get all the weight it wants. Lizzie Poppet Feb 2016 #93

Not under the collective right interpretation MohRokTah Feb 2016 #94

It really wasn't. beevul Feb 2016 #96

In washington state it is both. AtheistCrusader Feb 2016 #99

Not sure this so called collective right theory is gonna ever fly again, if it really ever did... jmg257 Feb 2016 #108

It never flew sarisataka Feb 2016 #110

Perhaps you'll be more responsive in a month... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #186

I've noticed that sort tend to have problems playing well with others friendly_iconoclast Feb 2016 #187

The usual pattern DonP Feb 2016 #189

To be clear TeddyR Feb 2016 #138

Considering that the SCOTUS decision in District of Columbia v. Heller guillaumeb Feb 2016 #28

Please cite sarisataka Feb 2016 #29

For you. I hope this did not take too long. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #32

So by "all previous SCOTUS precedent" sarisataka Feb 2016 #42

All previous SCOTUS precedent pre-Heller was 3 cases. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #54

and all of them, other than Miller, gejohnston Feb 2016 #58

Your link makes reference to US v Miller, and that may not be a good thing for your argument -- Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #33

Reread number 3. I believe you have it backwards. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #34

Yes, and the purpose of the militia is to guarantee a free state, not "The State." Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #38

And the militia, not an organized permanent army, is meant to be guillaumeb Feb 2016 #39

"Well-Regulated" doesn't mean "constrained to the point in inoperability" Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #40

"Well regulated" also does not mean totally unregulated. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #56

"Well regulated" refers to the militia when under government authority... beevul Feb 2016 #59

"how you make the connection that this unorganized militia cannot be regulated by the states?" Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #60

You ignore what you cannot refute. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #61

Laughable. beevul Feb 2016 #64

Laughable guillaumeb Feb 2016 #67

Too bad the right belongs to the people not the militia. beevul Feb 2016 #84

"You ignore what you cannot refute." Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #66

Should people older than 45 be forbidden to bear arms? guillaumeb Feb 2016 #68

You should conclude that the militia is a sub-set of the people to whom the right belongs. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #70

The 2d does TeddyR Feb 2016 #157

Why would the 2nd be needed to give the states rights to form militias?? jmg257 Feb 2016 #71

UNorganized Militia is a JOKE jimmy the one Feb 2016 #101

Your subjective opinion is meaningless in matters of law. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #114

I agree that the UNorganized militia is not the well-regulated militias secured by the 2nd. jmg257 Feb 2016 #134

unorganized mob militia jimmy the one Feb 2016 #149

"Thus obvious to some of us, the 2nd amendment is worthless and obsolete" Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #152

The reserve militia is mentioned in the various militia acts. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #135

What's amazing is that... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #136

What is amazing is that... guillaumeb Feb 2016 #141

It is amazing allright. beevul Feb 2016 #142

Those of an authoritarian mindset tend to do a lot of 'special pleading'... friendly_iconoclast Feb 2016 #143

They do indeed. N/T beevul Feb 2016 #147

Many folks choose to carry concealed discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #144

militia ages still seem in effect (17-45) jimmy the one Feb 2016 #151

So what? beevul Feb 2016 #43

... militia, as defined by the Constitution sarisataka Feb 2016 #52

The issue is simple. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #55

Indeed it is. beevul Feb 2016 #62

"Remember also that the Amendment refers to 'the people' rather than 'any and every individual(s)'." Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #63

Game set and match, right there. N/t beevul Feb 2016 #65

I always enjoy a good game of mixed doubles. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #139

Very simple sarisataka Feb 2016 #69

Miller spells out militia rights jimmy the one Feb 2016 #97

Perhaps you need to read it a few more times sarisataka Feb 2016 #109

adams family jimmy the one Feb 2016 #129

So we have a bit of an enigma sarisataka Feb 2016 #137

in brief jimmy the one Feb 2016 #150

A DOJ brief is not law. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #158

Question TeddyR Feb 2016 #145

The Amendment has two clauses in one sentence. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #148

You didn't answer my question about TeddyR Feb 2016 #154

"We the people" refers to a class of people. Not any one individual. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #162

When your "the people != individuals" argument was tested with the 1A, 4A, 9A and 10A you Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #164

I stand by what I just wrote. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #165

How does your interpretation only apply to the 2A but not the other amendments? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #166

We are discussing this Amendment. Start another post if you wish. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #167

Yes, we are discussing the 2A, which is why your departure from every other instance of Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #168

We agree on something! guillaumeb Feb 2016 #169

Does that status continue to this day? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #173

Original intent is key, at least according to Scalia. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #183

Stop hiding behind a dead man. Does the exclusion of women and non-whites still apply? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #185

Do you agree with Scalia on "original intent", or disagree? guillaumeb Feb 2016 #188

The militia is a subset of the people. The right belongs to the people. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #190

Some are for expanding that original intent... beevul Feb 2016 #191

There are two arguments here: guillaumeb Feb 2016 #192

Which has nothing to do with reality. beevul Feb 2016 #193

On what grounds TeddyR Feb 2016 #174

Only if you ignore constitutional jurisprudence does that argument hold water. beevul Feb 2016 #171

US Constitution... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #172

How do you reach the conclusion that the Militias in the 2nd jmg257 Feb 2016 #73

"Talk about ignoring the original intent that he claimed to revere!" beevul Feb 2016 #47

Why do we want a strict Militia interpretation?? Is everyone gassing for M16s, M4s and M9s? jmg257 Feb 2016 #35

How about a catapult? shenmue Feb 2016 #79

That would be pretty sweet! Lay siege to...something somewhere! nt jmg257 Feb 2016 #85

Stare Decisis, baby. appal_jack Feb 2016 #36

Aw, a mind which has lost its flexibility... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #72

So you think TeddyR Feb 2016 #176

Worried? No. Gun laws were massively liberalized before Heller. nt Eleanors38 Feb 2016 #37

How many states, do you think shadowrider Feb 2016 #41

This message was self-deleted by its author pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #74

I think it's really cute how excited the gun control fans are DonP Feb 2016 #86

Unlike gun-nuts, gun control folks want the carnage to end... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #87

Too bad you don't actually do anything but whine onlne about it though DonP Feb 2016 #88

You refused to answer all my questions... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #89

No, actually gun controllers are generally just not worth bothering with anymore DonP Feb 2016 #95

This message was self-deleted by its author pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #194

I don't know a single person, "gun nut" or otherwise, who feels that way. Lizzie Poppet Feb 2016 #91

Wow. Just wow. Thats a startling admission. beevul Feb 2016 #98

"Breyer is demonstrably wrong" huh???? Herman4747 Feb 2016 #100

Whats the matter... beevul Feb 2016 #105

You're the one buddy, giving the Rush Limbaugh crap... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #106

What nonsense. beevul Feb 2016 #111

Guy, you have no law degree, right?? Herman4747 Feb 2016 #113

You know who does have a law degree? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #115

All the justices in Bush v. Gore had law degrees... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #119

Yes. And you selected that as the delineation for whether or not a person has credibility. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #120

Well, if I can see the sham of Bush v. Gore... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #124

So law degrees only count when you want them to based on which of your qualifications? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #127

You don't know what I have. beevul Feb 2016 #117

Let's consider what you write: Herman4747 Feb 2016 #118

And lets consider what YOU write. beevul Feb 2016 #123

So majority opinions are always right in your mind... Herman4747 Feb 2016 #126

Funny that you should mention Plessy v Ferguson Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #130

How long have *you* had a law degree, and what area of law is your specialty? friendly_iconoclast Feb 2016 #131

Not at all. beevul Feb 2016 #133

Not to mention that legally, the Breyer "Dissent" is "not worth a bucket of warm spit" ... DonP Feb 2016 #121

How about the Texas v. Johnson case. beevul Feb 2016 #125

Control fans are very big on "situational ethics" we've noticed DonP Feb 2016 #128

I've asked the OP another question downthread that will probably also be dodged friendly_iconoclast Feb 2016 #132

That's an easy question to answer TeddyR Feb 2016 #146

"Unlike *gun-nuts*, gun control folks want the carnage to end..." pablo_marmol Feb 2016 #196

Quick! Run out and buy more guns. They're coming to take you away, ah hah eom mikehiggins Feb 2016 #102

Usually when someone writes that they actually want guns to be taken away. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2016 #116

They just don't quite have the courage to be honest about it. DonP Feb 2016 #122

There has been an outbreak of factose intolerance amongst the gun-averse in this thread... friendly_iconoclast Feb 2016 #140

Ima so skeared my chewin tobacca don't taste right discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2016 #153

Back to the basic question in this post TeddyR Feb 2016 #177