PDA

View Full Version : Ginsburg suggests overrulling Heller


ipser
12-22-2009, 1:58 PM
On Thursday, Dec. 17, Justice Ginsburg spoke at a luncheon of the Harvard Club of Washington, D.C. I was not present at the luncheon, but I have heard, third-hand, that she spoke on the value of dissenting opinions. She said that sometimes a dissent can become the majority of a “future, wiser court.” As an example, she pointed to the dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller.

http://volokh.com/2009/12/20/justice-ginsburg-supreme-court-may-eventually-overrule-heller/

Roadrunner
12-22-2009, 3:29 PM
No surprise here. Just another liberal with blinders on and regurgitating the liberal party line from her ivory tower. Contrary to what she might think, there's nothing profound or wise in her comments.

The Director
12-22-2009, 3:41 PM
How can they overrule their own decision after the fact? is there a legal mechanism for that?

kf6tac
12-22-2009, 3:46 PM
How can they overrule their own decision after the fact? is there a legal mechanism for that?

Sure. Get 5 justices to vote the other way the next time a gun case comes up. They could probably do it in McDonald if they could actually get a 5th vote.

andalusi
12-22-2009, 3:47 PM
How can they overrule their own decision after the fact? is there a legal mechanism for that?

Er, yes, that's how the Supreme Court works. It's the highest court in the land. The Justices set precedents; they're not bound by them, even earlier decisions. That's how it's supposed to go.

In this case, I vehemently disagree with Ginsberg's alleged desire to overturn Heller, but she and the other Justices are nonetheless perfectly free legally to do so if they choose.

Shotgun Man
12-22-2009, 3:50 PM
On Thursday, Dec. 17, Justice Ginsburg spoke at a luncheon of the Harvard Club of Washington, D.C. I was not present at the luncheon, but I have heard, third-hand, that she spoke on the value of dissenting opinions. She said that sometimes a dissent can become the majority of a “future, wiser court.” As an example, she pointed to the dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller.
http://volokh.com/2009/12/20/justice-ginsburg-supreme-court-may-eventually-overrule-heller/

"Future, wiser court"-- is that a reference to Sotomayor?

scc1909
12-22-2009, 4:06 PM
How can they overrule their own decision after the fact? is there a legal mechanism for that?
We already know the answer to this, but here's an example to illustrate the point.

In 1857 the Supremes ruled that a slave (Dred Scott) was not a citizen of the US because he was, well, a negro slave. They further opined that the Congress had no legal right to overturn the institution of slavery through new laws. In 1896 they extended that vision in the Plessy vs Ferguson ruling, which resulted in the "Jim Crow" laws of the Old South. It was not until 1954 that the Supreme Court reversed itself and began dismantling the legacy of slavery in this country.

So yes, a future SCOTUS could take a look at the 2nd and come to a diametrically opposed ruling. The operative word is "could". Be vigilant, friends!

stormy_clothing
12-22-2009, 4:20 PM
Costa Rica here I come

bodger
12-22-2009, 5:24 PM
Costa Rica here I come


What are the gun laws like down there? Cash and carry on EBRs?

Sometimes I feel like moving to Idaho and putting up a 15 foot high electrified fence.

Ford8N
12-22-2009, 5:24 PM
So yes, a future SCOTUS could take a look at the 2nd and come to a diametrically opposed ruling. The operative word is "could". Be vigilant, friends!

Civil War II

FreshTapCoke
12-22-2009, 5:35 PM
I wish I couldve been there to ask if that meant she'd be voting to overturn Slaughterhouse.

The Director
12-22-2009, 5:55 PM
Civil War II

Oh yeah.

Sutcliffe
12-22-2009, 6:05 PM
I wish I couldve been there to ask if that meant she'd be voting to overturn Slaughterhouse.

What I wouldn't give for that!

chris
12-22-2009, 6:08 PM
Civil War II

Oh yeah.

that would be devestating to this nation. can history repeat itself? sure it can we are ignoring it on a daily basis. Congress and the Senate are ignoring the will of the people on health care. they will reap the whirlwind come 2010 elections. i think that is a safe bet to say that any Senator and anyone in Congress is gonna lose their seat! Obama is not gonna know what hit'em after that.

Lone_Gunman
12-22-2009, 7:20 PM
that would be devestating to this nation. can history repeat itself? sure it can we are ignoring it on a daily basis. Congress and the Senate are ignoring the will of the people on health care. they will reap the whirlwind come 2010 elections. i think that is a safe bet to say that any Senator and anyone in Congress is gonna lose their seat! Obama is not gonna know what hit'em after that.

The current political environment is pretty devastating as well. The problem is that the current 2 party system really does not represent the people anymore. Democrats- republicans, just different sides of the same coin. I too am about ready to move to Idaho and put up a big fence. If the U.S. wont build a border fence I'll build my own damn one.

hawk84
12-22-2009, 9:08 PM
Gibson hits it here at about the 2 minute mark

"an elected legislature can trample a mans rights as easy as king can"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKW-Gm9bvpU&feature=related

sholling
12-22-2009, 11:33 PM
that would be devestating to this nation. can history repeat itself? sure it can we are ignoring it on a daily basis. Congress and the Senate are ignoring the will of the people on health care. they will reap the whirlwind come 2010 elections. i think that is a safe bet to say that any Senator and anyone in Congress is gonna lose their seat! Obama is not gonna know what hit'em after that.
It all depends on how much vote fraud they can get away with. Look how Al Frankin's election went - they just kept "finding" "misplaced" ballots until they had enough to get him over the top. They can do that in every state where they control the elections boards and have a Democrat Secretary of State running the count. Dems have been winning through voter intimidation, vote count fraud, the illegal alien vote, and the graveyard vote for 100 years.

There is a reason that the Democrats voted to restore ACORN funding and that's to register non existent voters. The Department of Justice has also sent a loud and clear signal to SEIU and the Black Panthers that they are fine with thugs scaring voters away from the polls. Next up rigging the census in time for 2012.

Rem222
12-22-2009, 11:56 PM
It all depends on how much vote fraud they can get away with. Look how Al Frankin's election went - they just kept "finding" "misplaced" ballots until they had enough to get him over the top. They can do that in every state where they control the elections boards and have a Democrat Secretary of State running the count. Dems have been winning through voter intimidation, vote count fraud, the illegal alien vote, and the graveyard vote for 100 years.

There is a reason that the Democrats voted to restore ACORN funding and that's to register non existent voters. The Department of Justice has also sent a loud and clear signal to SEIU and the Black Panthers that they are fine with thugs scaring voters away from the polls. Next up rigging the census in time for 2012.

Well said....

gravedigger
12-23-2009, 12:26 AM
~take it and wait somewhere else ~rkt

press1280
12-23-2009, 3:59 AM
I heard Ginsburg and Stevens were going to retire before Obama leaves office. That may present a chance for a larger pro-2A majority, even though I don't see Obama doing that. But it wouldn't be any worse than what we have now, unless one of our 5 dies or resigns.

Glock22Fan
12-23-2009, 8:52 AM
When Ginsberg says "a wiser court," she means one where enough justices think as she does. The more like her they think, the wiser they become.

The difference between a judge and God is that God knows he isn't a judge.

p7m8jg
12-23-2009, 9:34 AM
Hey, she's old and sickly. She'll die soon. No telling who'll take her place, better or worse for gun issues. Just no telling.

yellowfin
12-23-2009, 10:05 AM
The worst thing I dislike about replacing existing anti gun judges is that the replacements will be younger.

Sgt Raven
12-23-2009, 10:28 AM
The worst thing I dislike about replacing existing anti gun judges is that the replacements will be younger.

With a new justice you can hope they're not who everyone thinks they are or they have an epiphany and come over to our side.

yellowfin
12-23-2009, 10:33 AM
True, but that's worked against us more often than for us.

mister dize
12-23-2009, 6:49 PM
I've heard that if you take a hot cup of STFU and add cream and sugar, it's easier to get down.

AJAX22
12-23-2009, 7:04 PM
I say we buy some nukes from Czechoslovakia put up a big fence and claim sovereignty....

;)

Just kidding, just kidding, just kidding...... black helicopters are circling.....

vantec08
12-23-2009, 7:28 PM
unfortunately, ruth buzzy ginsberg doesnt think . . . .she "feels". In her run-up as SCOTUS candidate, she proclaimed publicly that she weighs every judicial decision with "is it right." Well . . . . is it right according to WHOM??? WHERE in the consitution is that proscribed?? The only consideration is that it meet constitutional muster.
But then what do I know. I never thought I would see the day that the Boy Scouts and the NRA would be the evil empire.

harryford
12-23-2009, 7:41 PM
How can they overrule their own decision after the fact? is there a legal mechanism for that?

the Supreme Court is not bound by stare desisis while all lower courts are, meaning the court is not bound by previous judgments.

GuyW
12-23-2009, 8:10 PM
the Supreme Court is not bound by stare desisis while all lower courts are, meaning the court is not bound by previous judgments.

...except that the Senate approval process tries to get every nominee to claim allegiance to stare decisis....

.

press1280
12-24-2009, 3:37 AM
...except that the Senate approval process tries to get every nominee to claim allegiance to stare decisis....

.

I may be wrong, but I think it's rare SCOTUS would overturn a monumental case(like Heller) so soon. Usually this stuff will be precedent for years and years before public attitudes and justices have shifted enough that the court has enough courage to overturn itself. Just look at Slaughterhouse, judges have been balking about that case for a long time and its been precedent for 136 years and was a narrow 5-4 vote.

Bugei
12-24-2009, 8:04 AM
that would be devestating to this nation. can history repeat itself? sure it can we are ignoring it on a daily basis. Congress and the Senate are ignoring the will of the people on health care. they will reap the whirlwind come 2010 elections. i think that is a safe bet to say that any Senator and anyone in Congress is gonna lose their seat! Obama is not gonna know what hit'em after that.

To be replaced by....what? Republicans? The ones who just had their turn and gave us deficit spending and the Prescription Drug entitlement program? The ones who didn't repeal Brady, GCA 68, NFA?

I don't think we're going to be voting ourselves out of this hole any time in the near future. So if it changes, it's going to be Civil War II that does it. Not looking forward to it. Just don't see any way to avoid it.

vantec08
12-24-2009, 11:12 AM
Right, Bugei. Freedom is NEVER free, and to re-claim our constitution and bill of rights AS WRITTEN will require more than merely voting. I wish to God it wasnt necessary .. . but wish in one hand and $(@& in the other and watch which one fills up first.

CSDGuy
12-24-2009, 11:58 AM
To be replaced by....what? Republicans? The ones who just had their turn and gave us deficit spending and the Prescription Drug entitlement program? The ones who didn't repeal Brady, GCA 68, NFA?

I don't think we're going to be voting ourselves out of this hole any time in the near future. So if it changes, it's going to be Civil War II that does it. Not looking forward to it. Just don't see any way to avoid it.
While the Republicans did have their turn, they didn't have a 60 member majority in the Senate and they didn't have the equivalent majority in the House either. They couldn't pull off a veto-proof vote. They couldn't repeal Brady, the '68 GCA, the NFA, and so on. Also, remember who's doing the biggest deficit spending... the current administration AND the current Democrat Majority in BOTH houses of Congress. In ONE year, they've incurred debt that is GREATER than the last 8 years combined!

If things switch around dramatically next fall and a bunch of actual conservatives get into office and they're in supermajority position, I think that a bunch of changes will happen pretty darned quickly - if the people that just got elected think those changes will result in their re-election.

The possibility of some big change occurring is there... but I don't think that change on the order of that magnitude is going to happen. Not yet.

Legasat
12-24-2009, 12:06 PM
With all of the anti-gun zealots, and health care, cap n tax, stimulus II, and all of the other power plays congress and the administration is taking on, one or some of the states are going to rebel. When Texas or Montana, or Tennessee secede, I'll be moving.

bodger
12-24-2009, 12:28 PM
With all of the anti-gun zealots, and health care, cap n tax, stimulus II, and all of the other power plays congress and the administration is taking on, one or some of the states are going to rebel. When Texas or Montana, or Tennessee secede, I'll be moving.


I'll be on the same trail. Enough is enough.
We are witnessing the destruction of America. It doesn't feel like our worst enemies are on foreign soil anymore.
I'm not a revolutionary or insurrectionist, but I can't stand by and see my country ruined.

Meplat
12-25-2009, 6:53 PM
They will not have to let you in.


With all of the anti-gun zealots, and health care, cap n tax, stimulus II, and all of the other power plays congress and the administration is taking on, one or some of the states are going to rebel. When Texas or Montana, or Tennessee secede, I'll be moving.

TheBundo
12-25-2009, 7:23 PM
How can they overrule their own decision after the fact? is there a legal mechanism for that?

SCOTUS overturned their decision of a couple of years earlier regarding compulsory Flag Salute. Of course, in that case (among others like slave ownership), the 1st decision was wrong, so we can be glad their is a mechanism to overturn their earlier decisions.

CenterX
12-25-2009, 7:36 PM
It could more than likely be a Revolution - not a Civil War - The session of states again is improbable. And as well as Revolution - improbable. Only the poor have nothing to loose in this current climate. Too many sheep.
SCOTUS can flip on the next hearing. What are your true limits?

CCWFacts
12-25-2009, 7:44 PM
The worst thing I dislike about replacing existing anti gun judges is that the replacements will be younger.

Yeah, she better live a couple more years. I think Obama is in for a rough ride in 2012.

hoffmang
12-25-2009, 8:40 PM
Let me pour a little pragmatism on the flames of skepticism. Heller isn't getting overturned anytime soon - read next 5-10 years. What that means is that we'll get incorporation and we'll end up striking down a lot of silly laws.

Striking down laws is way more important than just making the law go away. When we overturn laws, it changes public perception. The public tends to assume we're right because we're winning (and because we're not obviously incorrect at all - that's the difference between beating gun control and losing property rights in e.g. Kelo.)

What that means is that popular approval of the RKBA will continue its already strong trajectory against gun control and generally only accelerate towards tolerance of gun ownership and carry. By the time a future SCOTUS could muster the votes to significantly narrow or overturn Heller... Wait for the punchline...

We can simply amend the constitution at the Federal level to make clear that the 2A meant what it said but know its the 28A. Please note that more than enough states to ratify an amendment are asking the Supreme Court to incorporate the 2A via the 14A in McDonald.

Win in the courts to win in the public perception. Win in the public perception to marginalize the gun controllers.

-Gene

bulgron
12-25-2009, 8:56 PM
We can simply amend the constitution at the Federal level to make clear that the 2A meant what it said but know its the 28A. Please note that more than enough states to ratify an amendment are asking the Supreme Court to incorporate the 2A via the 14A in McDonald.

Yeah, because SCOTUS has never ignored popular opinion and thrown out the clear intent of an amendment just because they didn't like it.

Oh, wait, what are we arguing about with SCOTUS over the next six months or so?

:rolleyes:

Personally, I'd rather make sure that we never again allow an anti-gun majority reside on the federal bench. To do that, we can never stop fighting this fight.

hoffmang
12-25-2009, 8:59 PM
Yeah, because SCOTUS has never ignored popular opinion and thrown out the clear intent of an amendment just because they didn't like it.


I think that reconstruction racism doesn't compare well with a modern victory at the polls to reinstate what has always been there, but I hear you.

Better to just win the whole way - concur with that.

-Gene

hawk81
12-25-2009, 11:48 PM
She has cancer, she will be gone soon.:D She is an enemy to the constitution and to the United States. I don't want to hear anyone try and defend her.