Justice Ginsburg: "Future Wiser" Court may eventually overrule Heller.

Volokh Conspiracy ^ | 12-20-2009 | David Kopel

[freedomwarrior998]

On Thursday, Dec. 17, Justice Ginsburg spoke at a luncheon of the Harvard Club of Washington, D.C. I was not present at the luncheon, but I have heard, third-hand, that she spoke on the value of dissenting opinions. She said that sometimes a dissent can become the majority of a “future, wiser court.” As an example, she pointed to the dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller.

[lgjhn23]

“Post when she eventually dies, and where she’s buried...........there’s an old Southern ritual I’d like to perform........”

You’ll probably have to take a number and get in line.... I suspect it will be quite long.

[redgolum]

Perhaps, but history suggests something different.

[TStro]

If the Repubs had done their duty when they controlled both houses, and impeached all the justices who failed to uphold their oath to hold to the Constitution, we wouldn’t be in this mess. We have to elect Constitutionalists to Congress.

[TStro]

If the Repubs had done their duty when they controlled both houses, and impeached all the justices who failed to uphold their oath to hold to the Constitution, we wouldn’t be in this mess. We have to elect Constitutionalists to Congress.

[RWB Patriot]

*The sound of millions of bolts and slides being cocked is heard all around the US*

Come and get them.

[Red in Blue PA]

Ginsberg, read the effin Constitution!

[Red in Blue PA]

[Still Thinking]

Justice Ginsburg: "Future Wiser" Court may eventually overrule Heller

Still Thinking: "Future Wiser" Court may eventually EXTEND Heller

[El Gato]

Any “future, wiser court.” which overturns Heller, may find they have new parts in their hair, right between their ears.

[El Gato]

Hmmmm, Dred Scott comes to mind...

That overturned by Constitutional amendment, not by a "wiser court".

[MarkL]

So much for "stare decisis," which has been thrown about by leftists for as long as I can remember... "It's settled law." Right...

Mark

[El Gato]

EXACTLY!!!....and the Supreme Courts only job is to INTERPERT their INTENT at the time.

Actually I don't think intent is so important as meaning. Intent may illuminate meaning, but, as with any other contract, it's meaning that counts. The meaning when the contract was written and agreed to, not what one party wants it to mean at some future time.

[broken_arrow1]

Funny how the meaning of an Inalienable Right stated thusly: “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”, means so many things to so many people.

[Don W]

some folks are too stupid to realize they’re stupid. MOST of them are LIEberals. The rest, well, they will out themselves. Case in point...

[PLMerite]

“As an example, she pointed to the dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller.”

Bring it.

[Favor Center]

“It’ll take you about thirty minutes to realize you’re way in over your head.”

So were they, in a way. The Anti-Federalists were right, after all. Without the Bill of Rights explicitly defining some rights that must be protected, we’d have passed into tyranny long ago. With some more exposition of what defined “commerce” and “the general welfare”, there would’ve been less wiggle room. I guess they thought too well of their progeny - that we wouldn’t need a glossary and would know what “commerce” or “shall not be infringed” meant. Part of the problem is that (many were lawyers) the practice of law has changed. Clear language and thinking were the norm. Now.... it’s all penumbras and lies.

[Favor Center]

“Her statement strikes me as grossly unprofessional.”

Professional standards in the legal profession are low, it would seem. For every Thomas, there are a whole bunch like her.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the comments. I enjoyed them and agree with you.

[Favor Center]

“Thanks for the comments. “

Thanks. I’ve enjoyed your posts too.