I believe this provided that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.
Really? You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason? And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?
What idiocy! Here is the situation you have today:
Statutes are written and people argue and fight in court. The question reaches the United States Supreme Court. Let's say that whatever you're doing is deemed legal.
But, lo and behold another administration comes in and a new Supreme Court rethinks that decision. Now you are a criminal!!!
Lo and behold!! Such things aren't retroactive, moron. THAT would be against the law. Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling in your favor, that's it for your case. Even if the Supreme Court issues a ruling in another case reversing that precedent, YOUR case is still settled. If the ruling had been against you, then you would have the right to have your case retried on the basis of the later ruling, but the 5th Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy means that no one but you can ask for your case to be retried.
Moron.
But, IF the new administration thinks they are right, they take their case to the LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES which includes the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. They can then rewrite the law, make changes and agree to them, whereupon the EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (currently headed by Donald Trump) can sign the changes into law.
If, for any reason, that is constitutionally insufficient, you change the Constitution via an AMENDMENT.
The United States Supreme Court is NOT the legislative department and you are NOT stuck with a law you don't like. You simply have to go through the proper process and not allow un-elected bureaucrats legislate from the bench. It's not their job.
That's nice, but it's not what we're talking about. The Supreme Court can and does apply the law to specific cases, and those decisions do become precedent as to how that law will be applied to future cases. And the Supreme Court can and does reverse decisions by earlier courts as being bad applications of the law. Feel free to Google the list of Supreme Court reversals; it's a long one.
BTW, though I'm pro-life, I practice what I preach. IF there is no new science that alters the balance of the argument, I will go record opposing the United States Supreme Court from rehearing Roe v. Wade. If there's nothing new except the faces on the United States Supreme Court, we should be stuck with abortion unless we can get the Constitution amended as per George Washington's admonishment.
And here you've veered off into "I want to claim the mantle of science and reason, but I don't actually know any of the science involved." 1) We already have "new science" in regards to embryology and reproduction far beyond what we had when Roe was decided, and 2) Roe was a shit decision with a shit application of even the science available at the time. Oh, and 3) the Constitution doesn't need to be amended; it just needs to be followed as written, with the federal government not meddling in things the Constitution relegates to the states in the first place.
Save your name calling. You're getting you ass whipped and all you can do is call me names? Fuck you.
Try telling the people who were manufacturing bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws. Did the government exclude those made before the Executive Order? No. So, it appears YOU would be the moron. The government disrespects the Constitution at every level. I've worked on cases that went to the United States Supreme Court. Have you?
Since the science has evolved, we can better understand what a life consists of. Yes, it was a shit decision, but I used it as an example, not as an opportunity for your arrogant ass to start a pissing contest over. So stick it. Stupid slut.
Save your "You called me names, you're a meanie!". You just got your ass shredded, and all you can do is focus on one phrase, ignore the rest of the post, and hope to deflect the discussion.
I don't have to tell the people who manufactured bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws, but I do apparently have to explain them to you. The concept of laws not being retroactive has nothing to do with the items manufactured, dimwit; it has to do with whether or not the PEOPLE doing the manufacturing can be punished by law for actions which were legal when they did them. Are there any bump stock manufacturers being prosecuted for illegally manufacturing bump stocks during the time before they were banned? No? Then your argument is invalid, and YOU continue to be the moron.
. . . And with your "Aha! I have claimed unverifiable personal experience on the Internet, so I WINNNN!!!" you have surrendered the debate and disqualified yourself as a serious poster.
You are dismissed, and I will now be talking to adults who can win their debates on the merits. Have a nice day on the bench, Junior.
