ErikLaurence wrote:Does the phrase "stare decisis" mean anything to you? Courts cannot willy-nilly reverse one another.
If you don't like the supreme court you are welcome to convene a constitutional convention of try to amend the Constitution under article V.
Except the SCOTUS. They are the highest court. They are not bound by stare decisis though they attempt to adhere to it unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Secondly, this is not common law. This is a constitutional matter.
I stated that a ping pong match is not desirable. The effect of court rulings, like those Devil is suggesting, would hold that the second amendment didn't grant citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Such a holding would induce a ping pong match. And that is the strategy of the left. The SCOTUS cannot undo the constitution for political reasons. If they do, they breach their fiduciary responsibility. Then their rulings would be subject to reversal. The lefties want to destroy the constancy of the constitution, their actions toward that end are clear.
I would like to see the lefties directly challenge the second amendment rather than this incessent nibbling away at it. It is an insult to the rule of law.