Could I Be Reading This Differently?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

TerryMiller

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
18,625
Reaction score
18,204
Location
Here, but occasionally There.
First, a link to the story at FOX News.

Clarence Thomas Calls for Abandoning Demonstrably Erroneous Precedent


The article goes on to speculate that his idea is an attack on abortion. I'm wondering if it would also apply to gun rights.

Way back in the 19th century, after Darwin's book was published, pro-Darwin officials in a college (I think it was Harvard) got a pro-Darwin law professor on as the head of that college's law department, which is what led to the development of judging on case precedents instead of a strict literal reading of the Constitution.

As we see it now, courts have curtailed, or helped curtail, gun laws by "approving" such things as "red flag laws." Could Thomas' idea also hold the courts to a strict reading of the second amendment and not to holding to precedent? I know that in the past, the supreme court has overturned previous "precedents," so I'm wondering if Thomas' idea would help prevent further erosion of all rights?
 

okietool

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
5,244
Reaction score
1,975
Location
under the rock
A vague statement like that could apply to any decision ever handed down by the court.

Legal eagles on both sides of the prolife debate have said Roe v Wade was a bad decision and bad law.

Anytime Justice Thomas belches the abortion on demand crowd think it’s an assault on their “right” to kill a baby.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom