Can the Heller Supreme Court case also be overturned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure. Supreme Court Constitutional analysis has been reduced to the level of bad faith Internet arguments. At this point, it's just a bunch of words obscuring the raw use of power. Advocates of safe gun laws just have to get enough power.

+1

Change the justices and the rulings change. Obviously.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely. Heller needs to be overturned.

I would also add citizens United (allows corporate money into politics) and of course now Dobbs and West Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heller was based on the text of the Second Amendment; there is no corresponding text in the constitution regarding abortion.

Heller overturned 100+ years of 2nd Amendment precedent and shared judicial understanding of the text.

It was a radical decision by some phonies pretending to be "textualists" (a meaningless phrase)

Not really. The question of whether the 2nd Amendment protected a collective right to firearms was certainly not settled prior to Heller. The wording refers to "the people", which is unambiguous in that it refers to the individual. . Regardless, stare decisis is not absolute, and the US has largely operated in line with a private right to bear arms. Very few people thought that they could only own guns if they were part of a state-organized militia. To assume that "the people" referred only to people within a state-organized militia, or some other state-sanctioned collective would cause chaos for any other Amendment that referred to "the people", including the first.

Even if we completely ignore the 2nd amendment, current standards for substantive due process as championed by liberal judges, and begrudgingly adhered to by conservative ones, would very easily find an individual right to bear arms based on the rich history of the United States prior to, at the time, and after the 14th amendment was passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heller was based on the text of the Second Amendment; there is no corresponding text in the constitution regarding abortion.

Heller overturned 100+ years of 2nd Amendment precedent and shared judicial understanding of the text.

It was a radical decision by some phonies pretending to be "textualists" (a meaningless phrase)

Not really. The question of whether the 2nd Amendment protected a collective right to firearms was certainly not settled prior to Heller. The wording refers to "the people", which is unambiguous in that it refers to the individual. . Regardless, stare decisis is not absolute, and the US has largely operated in line with a private right to bear arms. Very few people thought that they could only own guns if they were part of a state-organized militia. To assume that "the people" referred only to people within a state-organized militia, or some other state-sanctioned collective would cause chaos for any other Amendment that referred to "the people", including the first.

Even if we completely ignore the 2nd amendment, current standards for substantive due process as championed by liberal judges, and begrudgingly adhered to by conservative ones, would very easily find an individual right to bear arms based on the rich history of the United States prior to, at the time, and after the 14th amendment was passed.

So you admit that Heller changed what the 2nd Amendment means. Good to know we agree.

[Anonymous]

Yes it will be overturned and the original decision heavily criticized as flawed. The new emphasis will be placed on “well regulated”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely. Heller needs to be overturned.

I would also add citizens United (allows corporate money into politics) and of course now Dobbs and West Virginia.

Yup. Let’s drop those crap rulings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heller was based on the text of the Second Amendment; there is no corresponding text in the constitution regarding abortion.

Heller overturned 100+ years of 2nd Amendment precedent and shared judicial understanding of the text.

It was a radical decision by some phonies pretending to be "textualists" (a meaningless phrase)

Not really. The question of whether the 2nd Amendment protected a collective right to firearms was certainly not settled prior to Heller. The wording refers to "the people", which is unambiguous in that it refers to the individual. . Regardless, stare decisis is not absolute, and the US has largely operated in line with a private right to bear arms. Very few people thought that they could only own guns if they were part of a state-organized militia. To assume that "the people" referred only to people within a state-organized militia, or some other state-sanctioned collective would cause chaos for any other Amendment that referred to "the people", including the first.

Even if we completely ignore the 2nd amendment, current standards for substantive due process as championed by liberal judges, and begrudgingly adhered to by conservative ones, would very easily find an individual right to bear arms based on the rich history of the United States prior to, at the time, and after the 14th amendment was passed.

So you admit that Heller changed what the 2nd Amendment means. Good to know we agree.

Where did I say that? Do you have reading comprehension problems?

[Anonymous]

In what world does a democratic president get a large enough senate majority to pack the court sufficiently to over turn Heller?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In what world does a democratic president get a large enough senate majority to pack the court sufficiently to over turn Heller?

You people are so unhinged. You get rulings you don’t like and what to pack the court, or in the case of Maxine Waters, to simply not follow to ruling of the Court. So ironic as the Congressional hearings into insurrection are going on. What rank hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes it will be overturned and the original decision heavily criticized as flawed. The new emphasis will be placed on “well regulated”.

Prior SCOTUS decisions stated to the effect that they could only regulate weapons that were suitable for militia use, for example that short barreled shotguns were unfit for military use in Miller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heller was based on the text of the Second Amendment; there is no corresponding text in the constitution regarding abortion.

Heller overturned 100+ years of 2nd Amendment precedent and shared judicial understanding of the text.

It was a radical decision by some phonies pretending to be "textualists" (a meaningless phrase)

Not really. The question of whether the 2nd Amendment protected a collective right to firearms was certainly not settled prior to Heller. The wording refers to "the people", which is unambiguous in that it refers to the individual. . Regardless, stare decisis is not absolute, and the US has largely operated in line with a private right to bear arms. Very few people thought that they could only own guns if they were part of a state-organized militia. To assume that "the people" referred only to people within a state-organized militia, or some other state-sanctioned collective would cause chaos for any other Amendment that referred to "the people", including the first.

Even if we completely ignore the 2nd amendment, current standards for substantive due process as championed by liberal judges, and begrudgingly adhered to by conservative ones, would very easily find an individual right to bear arms based on the rich history of the United States prior to, at the time, and after the 14th amendment was passed.

You know. I’m going to go with Chief Justice Burger’s assessment. A conservative constructionist nominated by Nixon to reign in the judicial activism of a liberal court.

In his words, “The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

He also voted with the majority on Roe.

Just a reminder how very completely the GOP has lost its way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heller was based on the text of the Second Amendment; there is no corresponding text in the constitution regarding abortion.

Heller overturned 100+ years of 2nd Amendment precedent and shared judicial understanding of the text.

It was a radical decision by some phonies pretending to be "textualists" (a meaningless phrase)

Not really. The question of whether the 2nd Amendment protected a collective right to firearms was certainly not settled prior to Heller. The wording refers to "the people", which is unambiguous in that it refers to the individual. . Regardless, stare decisis is not absolute, and the US has largely operated in line with a private right to bear arms. Very few people thought that they could only own guns if they were part of a state-organized militia. To assume that "the people" referred only to people within a state-organized militia, or some other state-sanctioned collective would cause chaos for any other Amendment that referred to "the people", including the first.

Even if we completely ignore the 2nd amendment, current standards for substantive due process as championed by liberal judges, and begrudgingly adhered to by conservative ones, would very easily find an individual right to bear arms based on the rich history of the United States prior to, at the time, and after the 14th amendment was passed.

You know. I’m going to go with Chief Justice Burger’s assessment. A conservative constructionist nominated by Nixon to reign in the judicial activism of a liberal court.

In his words, “The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

He also voted with the majority on Roe.

Just a reminder how very completely the GOP has lost its way.

^rein

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In what world does a democratic president get a large enough senate majority to pack the court sufficiently to over turn Heller?

You people are so unhinged. You get rulings you don’t like and what to pack the court, or in the case of Maxine Waters, to simply not follow to ruling of the Court. So ironic as the Congressional hearings into insurrection are going on. What rank hypocrisy.

When you have McConnell using opposite logic in order to block a democratic nominee on one end and push through a republican nominee on the other end, then people are going to clamor for their side to exercise the same realpolitik