It was the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as supported by the Supreme Court for two centuries until they changed their mind in 2008, and even then four justices dissented.

What the Constitution says and what Constitutional rights exist and in what form comes down to the subjective interpretation of the court, and as history has shown, even recently, that opinion can turn on a dime.

>It’s also contrary to many state constitutions, which provide an even more definitive individual, affirmative right to bear arms.

Those constitutions were either updated after Heller or else were unconstitutional prior to 2008.

That's what we discussed. Given what the constitution says, that ruling is BS.

The law and supreme courts are politics --not some clean, divine, body that comes with only just rulings.

"Liberty and justice for all", for example, if I'm not mistaken, was in there from the beginning, but the courts could not give a rats ass for slavery, segregation, etc, until they were forced to by popular protests.

So, that 2/3 of the congress is not much consolation either.

SCOTUS does not concern itself with the angered mob (paraphrasing Dobbs and a few other cases). It exists to read and interpret the law. Do you want a Court that bends its rulings to the "match and blow up"? I certainly don't.

Yeah. Based off the various deep dives I heard about a year ago, the court is supposed to strongly favor leaving prior court rulings in place, but the current justices decided that they were fine changing prior rulings since it's a convention, not a rule.

The current SC really dislikes all the prior rulings that were based off the 14th amendment, so I fully expect this same behavior to continue.

I was very clearly referring to the fact that if the 2nd amendment were to be taken as an intent to allow citizens to revolt against the government then it is not clear on what grounds the seemingly absurd corollaries of that, as a legal position, would be dismissed. Which you haven't addressed at all except to say "but it's not actually precedent yet!"

It is not - because the Supreme Court has very obviously in Heller not interpreted it that way. So I don't know of what value anyone can argue this was the intent because the body defining the law of the land and the interpretation of the constitution does not agree with you.

But even if we grant the SC is not the be all and end all, you still haven't managed to actually address why that position would be absurd? What use are firearms against a Federal government which, to take an extreme example, gives itself Dune-style shields for all officers and personnel, but not civilians. Why are limits on arms, actually suitable to overthrow the government - so say, maybe a whole lot of Javelin anti-tank missiles as they are currently proving useful - not within the remit of the 2nd?

This is the only statement in your take that I disagree with. In the checks and balances system, the supreme court is exactly supposed to protect the balance between federal, state, and individual rights.

One consistent court might have protected gun rights and abortion rights this week. Another might have permitted restrictions on both. Instead we got gun rights and body control. The apolitical ship has sailed.

Since a not-small portion of the US constitutional law community does not feel this way and instead feels that the current Court is ruling based on solid legal and philosophical principles, perhaps it would raise the level of discourse for you to give arguments for your conclusion rather than merely stating it.

I've become deeply cynical about this argument. The Constitution is a weapon, used by the powerful against the powerless. I think it's pretty clear that in many cases the Supreme Court decides cases on purely ideological grounds, then goes back and creates post hoc justifications from precedent and the text.

Public opinion is useless here - it doesn't matter whether people are "OK" with something. What will you do, elect a new Supreme Court?

I don't understand this comment? Nothing in the law is fixed. I just find this current angle of attack really disheartening and insincere, but the law is about making a persuasive case to the appropriate audience, at the appropriate time. The Court hears lots of things that I'd argue it has no business in hearing, but that is its prerogative and what it chooses to hear depends on the the makeup of the Court at the time the case is presented.

This case is a vehicle for the Alliance Defending Freedom to use to further their goals because they believe the Court will rule in a way that is sympathetic to their cause. This is not an opinion. This is a fact. I'm not judging them for doing that, it's the nature of the game. The legal argument they're making for it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

> It wouldn't have even made it to the supreme court if it was plainly rehashing old cases.

The SCOTUS is 9 people in a conference room deciding what cases to hear. Of course, it's not _that_ simplistic, but there isn't some state machine here that determines ripeness, mootness, etc. Everyone in the court ascribes to a different jurisprudence (e.g. not everyone in the Court believes in stare decisis, not everyone cares for originalism, etc) and everyone has different motivations. Cases are selected in the pursuit of those goals by whatever happens to be the majority.

I personally dislike the increasing use of the Court to answer what are ultimately political questions. It erodes the legitimacy of the Court and causes it to inherently appear more partisan as it takes on divisive cases.

Which Supreme Court decision did they overrule here? They upheld the Equal Protection Clause. Should they have overruled that?

"Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens"

They upheld that. Should they have overruled it?

They had to overrule something. People are mad because they didn't overrule the Equal Protection Clause.

> This was already decided forty years ago

If the US Supreme Court never overturned its decisions, these decisions would still be in force:

- laws criminalising private consensual same-sex activity are constitutional (Bowers v Hardwick, 1986–overturned by Lawrence v Texas in 2003)

- miscegenation laws do not violate the 14th Amendment (Pace v Alambama, 1883–overturned in part by McLaughlin v Florida in 1964 and fully by Loving v Virginia in 1967)

- legally enforced racial segregation does not violate the 14th Amendment (Plessy v Ferguson, 1896–effectively overturned by Brown v Board of Education in 1954)

- racial segregation in public schools is constitutional (Cumming v Richmond County Board of Education, 1899–also overturned by Brown v Board of Education)

- states have the constitutional right to ban racially integrated private educational institutions (Berea College v Kentucky, 1908–also overturned by Brown v Board of Education)

- it is constitutional to execute juvenile offenders who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crime (Stanford v Kentucky, 1989–overturned by Roper v Simmons, 2005)

- it is constitutional to execute the intellectually disabled (Penry v Lynaugh, 1989–overturned by Atkins v Virginia in 2002)

- it is constitutional for public schools to force students to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, even if they have a religious objection to doing so (Minersville School District v Gobitis, 1940–overturned a mere three years later by West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 1943)

- labor laws which impose limits on working hours are unconstitutional (Lochner v New York, 1905–never explicitly overturned, although a series of 1930s decisions effectively did so)

- minimum wage laws are unconstitutional (Adkins v Children's Hospital, 1923–overturned by West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish, 1937)

- child labor laws violate children's constitutional right to work (Hammer v Dagenhart, 1918, and Bailey v Drexel Furniture Co, 1922–overturned by United States v Darby Lumber Co, 1941)

If the principle "the Supreme Court should never overturn its past decisions" was accepted–the US would be a very different country today. Even if you only want to apply that principle to "established precedent" – Pace v Alabama was law for over 80 years, so if that principle was seriously followed, interracial marriage bans might well still exist in the US today.

Not sure I understand; of course it's fine to share your opinion. My opinion is that yours is far too simplistic and completely ignores the nuances that always appear in constitutional cases such as these.

>Also, the Supreme Court may very well weigh in and may very well be wrong on the law.

Sure... but I'd put more stock in their opinion vs your own.

The decision, as written by the late Scalia, to create an individual right bears no resemblance to any historical or legal precedent. Acting as amateur linguist and etymologist, it is ironic that Scalia, a so-called Originalist, ignores the original meaning of the terms in the amendment.

> Not exactly

Yes, exactly.

> Federal Law supercedes State Law

Not on state issues. The federal government has to stay in its lane.

> no State Constitution can contradict the US Constitution

Yes, they can, unless explicitly overridden. For example, most states do not have grand juries, even though the U.S. Constitution requires one before charging someone with a felony.

Yes and no. If you have a decision on one set of facts made on one basis just come up with another set of facts and another basis where you can get a opposing result without necessary logical conflict and you are all good.

The rat's nest of federal law and prior opinions makes this trivial, so at the end of the day, all legal opinions are arbitrary, and the only actual basis for any decision is whether or not it serves the interests of the court, which outside of the pet peeves, biases, and corruptions of individual judges, consists mostly of the perpetuation of the institution.

The SC's power is rooted in the federal government, and it is stacked with statist/corporatist hacks, so it will always have a preference for extending federal power, but that instinct must be tempered by the threat of an over-extension which reveals the inherent weakness of their position.

Making a move against a majority of the states now, on a subject where popular opinion is clearly against them, and with an all time low level of trust and respect for the federal government would definitely not be desirable.

Normally they could just refuse to hear appeals, but the 9th circuit is in a pretty feisty mood these days so I wouldn't be too surprised if they sided with the states, which would then force the SC to either let their ruling stand, or expose themselves directly on the issue.

Either way, they either let the states keep this going, or they piss off a lot of people, and either way is bad for them and good for the states.

Courts don't enforce laws, but I get what you mean. I have no confidence whatsoever that appellate courts will do anything about these laws. There has been a willful, deliberate, strategic stacking of the judiciary starting in the early 2000s to get us to this place.

Sorry to repeat myself, but we really can't all sit back and reference our civics books as if this system is still functioning to protect us against these fucked up laws. It's over. Stare decisis is now at the whim of the political affiliation of the courts.

Do you have quote from the decision to support this? It seems to conflict with what I excerpted and the analysis I've seen.

You see what's going on, but reason a bit further. The Supreme Court is part of the same government that's in the process of establishing a full police state / tyranny. Do you think they're not part of the problem?

Can a police state's Supreme Court be independent, objective, and intent on preserving freedom? -I wouldn't bet on it.

Get out while you can?

With the way that the Supreme Court not just got politicized, but effectively taken over over the last six years, it is IMO foolish to the extreme to rely on the SC defending anything in the future.