SCOTUS - YOU have the right to own.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 26, 2008 | 04:35 PM
  #16  
dzervit's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,424
Likes: 0
From: Motor City
This is MY America!!!

 
Reply
Old Jun 26, 2008 | 05:22 PM
  #17  
po1911's Avatar
Suspended
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
From: guess
Originally Posted by dzervit
This is MY America!!!

as long as the next machine over has para ordinance in it
 
Reply
Old Jun 26, 2008 | 07:59 PM
  #18  
BennyHanna's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
From: Bismarck, ND
Originally Posted by SmokeyBear
"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it." - Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

This is why you shouldn't elect retards.

prec·e·dent Audio Help /n. ˈprɛsɪdənt; adj. prɪˈsidnt, ˈprɛsɪdənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. pres-i-duhnt; adj. pri-seed-nt, pres-i-duhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Law. a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.
2. any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations.
–adjective precedent 3. preceding; anterior.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1350–1400; (adj.) ME < L praecédent- (s. of praecédéns) prp. of praecédere to go before, precede (see -ent); (n.) late ME, deriv. of the adj.]

—Related forms
prec·e·dent·less, adjective


—Synonyms 2. example, model, pattern, standard.



Am I wrong or is the Supreme Court supposed to weigh decisions on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a subject and not on what other courts already think about an issue. Isn't that the whole PURPOSE of the supreme court to overturn precedent when its unconstitutional? This nightmare of a senator needs to go back to berkley and do some more research.
The supreme court is supposed to look at precedent when deciding a case. Unfortunately for her, the precedent they are supposed to look at is previous rulings by the Supreme Court. Since the Supreme court has never made a ruling concerning the individual's right to bear arms, there was no precedent as far as they were concerned. You are also right though, they of course are to overturn precedent when it is unconstitutional.
 
Reply
Old Jun 26, 2008 | 08:08 PM
  #19  
PONY_DRIVER's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,034
Likes: 0
From: VA
Originally Posted by BennyHanna
The supreme court is supposed to look at precedent when deciding a case. Unfortunately for her, the precedent they are supposed to look at is previous rulings by the Supreme Court. Since the Supreme court has never made a ruling concerning the individual's right to bear arms, there was no precedent as far as they were concerned. You are also right though, they of course are to overturn precedent when it is unconstitutional.
Actually a half assed precedent was set in US vs Miller in 1939. The SCOTUS cited parts of that decision.
 
Reply
Old Jun 26, 2008 | 08:29 PM
  #20  
Grim's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
From: Tulsa, O K L A H O M A!
Originally Posted by kingfish51
Per the Supreme Court, you have the right to own guns.
Bull. I already had the right to own a gun, the Supreme Court just confirmed it!

No offense intended!

Grim
 
Reply




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:58 AM.