Again, show me where I have called for the repeal of 2A.
Also, stare decisis just means "abiding by precedent." If you actually read what I was saying to Pape, you'd see that I mentioned precedent, as well as moral, logical, and political considerations. All of which factor into a judge's decisions. How is that controversial?
Incorrect. The highest courts are certainly bound to pay more attention to their own precedent, but by your logic, Dred Scott could never have been overturned, and the Supreme Court would never reverse itself on a position. Ever. Okay, it's a little more complicated than I'm making it sound, but I think the Org's legal eagles will back me up here. The Supremes do change interpretations over time. This is not a bad thing. I, for one, am glad to see interracial marriage and consensual buggery made legal by Supreme fiat.
Why am I not in favor of a position I have never advocated? Dude, you either need to drink more or less. Not sure which applies.
Bookmarks