The use of historical evidence to determine constitutional rights

[FA_Q2]

Which is necessarily attached to their intent to overturn Heller, regardless of what happened to Roe.

And so:
What's not in evidence?
The left;s intent to overturn Heller, et al?
The left's hostility toward the the right to keep and bear arms?

The left's intent to ignore decades of stare decisis.

I know you don't seem to like that reality and repeating things that are not that and asking the same question again is pointless. You are just showing that you are unable to actually address the point given.

It is rather funny to see coming from you M14, typically this is the type of thing that democrats are throwing at you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The left's intent to ignore decades of stare decisis.

Which is necessarily attached to their intent to overturn Heller, regardless of what happened to Roe.
Thus, the desire to overturn Heller necessarily demonstrates their intent to ignore stare decisis.
Your point, addressed.

 

[FA_Q2]

Which is necessarily attached to their intent to overturn Heller, regardless of what happened to Roe.
Thus, the desire to overturn Heller necessarily demonstrates their intent to ignore stare decisis.
Your point, addressed.

Except that is your CLAIM.

It is a claim that is not evidenced as you have pointed to nothing that shows the left court being willing to overturn decades of stare decisis. You just keep repeating the claim that they were willing to ignore stare decisis without doing anything whatsoever to establish it.

So we are right back to where this started with my statement "because it is not in evidence.'

SHOW me I am wrong. I really want to believe that I am. I really want to think that the court will not go this direction as it is disastrous for the courts future and the state of law in this nation. However, it simply is not the case and reality matters.

I liken this to Harry Reid's thought that he could simply do away with the filibuster for court appointments in the first place. A decision that, while the reasoning SPECIFICALLY left out SCOTUS nominations directly led to the right using it to appoint SCOTUS nominees without the left. This is EXACTLY what is happening on the court. A future left court would have been held to stare decisis and now they simply will not.

What I am pointing out is not only evidenced in the court but is directly evidenced in other areas of the government. When one side does something that conveys some power or policy that they want the other side is almost assured that they will use the same methodology AND, just like in the case with Reid, the reasoning used is immaterial.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except that is your CLAIM.
It is a claim that is not evidenced as you have pointed to nothing that shows the left court being willing to overturn decades of stare decisis.

Ooh. You need me to substantiate my claim that the left wants to overturn Heller.
Got it.
And when I do, you will agree that I have demonstrated the left's willingness to overturn decades of stare decisis.
Correct?

 

[FA_Q2]

Ooh. You need me to substantiate my claim that the left wants to overturn Heller.
Got it.
And when I do, you will agree that I have demonstrated the left's willingness to overturn decades of stare decisis.
Correct?

No. How many times do I have to say that you have to demonstrate THE COURT would have been willing decades of STARE DECISIS.

How complicated is this concept? Of course the left wants to overturn Heller. The right wanted to overturn Roe for 50 years. Stare decisis had thus far held them back. The left CLEAERLY wants to overturn Heller.

What makes you think that they will continue to recognize stare decisis when the shoe is on the other foot? Wishful thinking and the unwillingness to deal with the fact that the very process you are supporting here will have a direct impact on something you very much do not want to happen in the future.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. How many times do I have to say that you have to demonstrate THE COURT would have been willing decades of STARE DECISIS.

I thought the entire point here is Dobbs proves the court -is- willing to ignore stare decisis, thus threatening the Heller, etc, ruling .
Oh wait - it is:

What makes you think that they will continue to recognize stare decisis when the shoe is on the other foot?

And so yo agree:
The entire point here -is- Dobbs proves the court -is- willing to ignore stare decisis, thus threatening the Heller, etc, ruling .

So, what exactly it is I am supposed to demonstrate?