[skimbell]

"...the Supreme Court, even with the substitution of a Trump appointee for Justice Kennedy, is unlikely to overturn it [Roe v. Wade] given the court’s respect for precedent..."

The left doesn't seem to pay much attention to all of this "precedent" chit when they are going after the 2A.

If Roe is safe owing to "precedence" emanating from a tortured reading of the 14th and 4th amendments, the 2A ought to be dam near untouchable owing to the fact that it is expressly and definitively written into the constitution.

[Architect of Avalon]

Precedent, said to be sacred by leftists in regards to stuff they made up, is said to be irrelevant in regards to stuff that is actually in the Constitution.

[jiggyboy]

"...the Supreme Court, even with the substitution of a Trump appointee for Justice Kennedy, is unlikely to overturn it [Roe v. Wade] given the court’s respect for precedent..."

This isn't a good talking point all of a sudden. In the last two or three weeks, the Supreme Court effectively overturned Korematsu vs United States (Japanese internment) and Abood vs Detroit Board of Education (compulsory union dues), and via Carpenter vs United States (cell tower records) has put Smith vs Maryland (phone call records), United States vs Miller (bank records), and Katz vs United States (the so-called bogus "third party doctrine") on a much shorter leash.

[joshua c]

Brown v Board of Education broke precedent.

You bolster your argument with precedent when you agree with the precedent. Otherwise, no.

The only thing that matters is its adherence to the Constitution.

[joshua c]

Didnt RvW break precedent?