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?
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?