It’s really funny, SCOTUS has been liberal-leaning since the sixties. Now that it isn’t, you and your friends are all having cows. Grow up and live with it. All you have to do is pass real legislation rather than having judges short-circuit the political system.
Nothing is settled precedent. Plessey and Dred were just as settled, and just as wrong under the a Constitution. Roe was always bad law, the decision was the result of the courts inventing rights and expanding the power of the federal government.
Sinema’s stands have solidified her support here in Arizona among independents and Republicans, otherwise she would have lost her seat this year. Kelly’s in trouble for voting the democratic ticket right down the line and he will be gone this year.
So the new SC justices were lying when they said it was, or were they just ignorant of the laws? Either way looks pretty bad for those goobers.
Roe was settled law until a new case came up.
They're not supposed to poll the people when deciding the constitutionality of laws. They're supposed to read the Constitution.
And the next Republican president would just repack it to get what he wants.
That was a transparent attempt to get them to commit to uphold it, no matter what. It should not have been asked of them and they should not have answered it.
That is incorrect. You are reacting emotionally, not logically.
And then the left will repack the court. This ruling turned the court political not bound by precedent so we will be voting on the Supreme Court appointees every election. Law will be what we say it is based on appointments. Not by law or precedent. I see zero issues.
The ruling is simply to undo a previously political ruling, and it needed to be done.
Same with Heller. A political ruling to be undone. Can’t wait to pack the court and get your guns.
I know. Hard questions are hard.
Now you're starting to understand, but that will be tougher because it deals with an actual enumerated Constitutional right. Good luck finding any of my guns. I'll laugh.
They're supposed to be independent and able to make up their minds for each individual case. They're not supposed to be asked to commit to voting any particular way on anything. That just makes a mockery of judicial independence, and the Senators should know better. Of course, they're democrats, so they don't.
Jackson lied when she said she couldn't define a woman because she wasn't a biologist--she shouldn't be ruling on RvW if she doesn't know what a woman is.
No it doesn’t. My packed court will find that your state can have a military with guns but no protection for individuals is explicitly enumerated. Can’t wait. Heller is toast soon.
Be sure to let us know what that happens, and good luck finding any at my place.
Meh. I could give a shit about your guns. But if what I described happened you’d resist, right?
