Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Could I Be Reading This Differently?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TerryMiller" data-source="post: 3243599" data-attributes="member: 7900"><p>First, a link to the story at FOX News.</p><p><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clarence-thomas-calls-for-abandoning-demonstrably-erroneous-precedent-touching-off-intense-roe-v-wade-speculation" target="_blank"></a></p><p><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clarence-thomas-calls-for-abandoning-demonstrably-erroneous-precedent-touching-off-intense-roe-v-wade-speculation" target="_blank">Clarence Thomas Calls for Abandoning Demonstrably Erroneous Precedent</a></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TerryMiller, post: 3243599, member: 7900"] First, a link to the story at FOX News. [URL='https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clarence-thomas-calls-for-abandoning-demonstrably-erroneous-precedent-touching-off-intense-roe-v-wade-speculation'] Clarence Thomas Calls for Abandoning Demonstrably Erroneous Precedent[/URL] 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Could I Be Reading This Differently?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom