CT circumvents process to pass Anti-gun bill...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't know if the past precedent principle has the power it once did.

I read a book about judicial decision making and scholars said that the best SCOTUS predictor was their politics. They then selectively filter past precedents to support their politics.

Given that in McDonald, IIRC, several of the justices opined that there was not a right to possess firearms - they seem to be denying the Heller precedent.

If the court changes, I would be leery of pushing another major gun case to them. That was the argument against going for Heller - some weren't sure it wouldn't go against us.

Even with Heller, the Scalia 'doctrine' of reasonable, unusual, blah, blah guns is cited as supporting bans.

[tulsamal]

I doubt it. One of the central tenets of their trade is precedent. They're supposed to be making constitutional judgements that stick, particularly when it comes to civil rights.

If they start reversing decisions only a couple of years after they're made, then the Court's very credibility as an arbiter of the Constitution gets thrown into question.

Reversing Heller and McDonald would be a tremendous sea change. The only such prior action on that level would be reversing Plessy v. Ferguson, and that took nearly 60 years.

I've got to agree with Tom.

Sure, we've got to worry about future appointments. But let's not do "the sky is falling" thing either. Constitutionally, things are FAR better now than they were when I was growing up in the 60's and 70's. Let's allow ourselves to be happy about that rather than all doom and gloom.

We've GOT to find a way to broaden the GOP base. Losing the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections is a trend that has to stop. Find a way to get more women to support the party. Emphasize the economic message. Vote GOP because you want a good job and you want good jobs for your children. And you don't want your children facing a national debt which can never be paid down and therefore cripples all our future actions.

Far too many women see the social conservative side of the GOP as a reason not to vote for them. I respect the pro-life movement but the truth is that many women see that position as explicitly anti-women's rights. They are as strident about that as we are about gun rights. My wife and two sisters are both that way. No argument will ever convince them otherwise. Either find some sort of compromise position or de-emplasize it as a core position. Or continue to lose... the older generation dies off and the younger one has different ideas.

Please don't let Hillary win next time.... having the Clintons back in the WH would be hard to live with!

Gregg

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I appreciate the sentiment of the last post but general political strategies are not our paradigm to discuss. So, I request that we don't go down that line to start a social conservative vs. economic conservative vs. liberal, etc. flame war.

To start to debate specific issues as women's rights - don't.

This is a hint and I won't infract the past post but let's not go there.

Thanks.

[tulsamal]

Oh... I see the potential problem you are addressing Glenn. And the potential for such a discussion to further divide us when we need to be united.

Thanks,

Gregg