Quote:
|
Did anyone else notice the amount of writing used to explain why they were overturning prior precedent?
|
Yeppers. I think we know who voted to hear McDonald
Quote:
|
At the same time, stare decisis is neither an “inexorable command,” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 577 (2003), nor “a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision,” Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, 119 (1940), especially in constitutional cases, see United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82, 101 (1978). If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.
|
A lot of strong wording from him and Scalia on the issue.
The President made a very unfortunate statement in response to this, saying he was going to "get to work immediately with Congress" to come up with a "forceful response." That one sounds very familiar.
Is it
1937 all over again?
What this will do is change the balance of power
towards the middle. Traditionally, corporations have only gone to the trouble of forming and funding PAC's when focused on specific, highly partisan issues. As such, candidates from the far right or far left have benefited.
Now that it's easier to advertise for a candidate, we're likely to see a groundswell of support for moderate republicans and conservative democrats.
As mentioned, it also gives the NRA, GOA, SAF and other 2A advocacy groups more latitude.
I've no doubt there will be all sorts of "watchdog" and whistleblower groups on both sides of the fence to keep things in balance. Of course, the MSM is screaming "judicial activism" over the whole thing.