View Single Post
Old 12-04-2012, 8:57 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,542
iTrader: 1 / 100%

A note about examining behavior of the southern courts during the civil rights movement...

It's important to remember that back then, the district courts answered directly to the Supreme Court. As a result, there was no "buffer" between the district courts and the Supreme Court.

Today, the appellate courts act as a buffer between the district courts and the Supreme Court. District courts answer to the appellate courts' jurisprudence, not that of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court jurisprudence is supposed to become that of the appellate courts, but history shows that to be laughably optimistic (see, e.g., Silveira v Lockyer and the the en banc denial for it, and pay attention especially to the 9th Circuit's definition of "militia" and how it conflicts with the Supreme Court's definition in Miller).

The very existence of the appellate courts makes possible widespread defiance of the Supreme Court, precisely because it is appellate court jurisprudence, and not Supreme Court jurisprudence, that district courts are beholden to.
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 12-04-2012 at 9:01 AM..