SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: combjelly who wrote (485181)6/2/2009 2:06:14 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) of 1574680
 
You are incorrect in that assumption.

It isn't an assumption. You have proved it yourself.

It is pretty unlikely you would have much in the way of precedent that violates the Constitution.

I'm getting the idea you don't even have the most rudimentary understanding of what the SC does or what is meant by "precedent".

Do you think there was no "precedent" in the lower court's ruling in Heller? Of course there was. That's a key point of the SC's very existence. To resolve conflicts in what constitutes "precedent" in various court hierarchies; sometimes it involves constitutional issues, sometimes just conflicts in interpretation of various statutes.

What is "Constitutional" often depends on whom you ask. It is the Court's responsibility to resolve these differences of opinion.

Take Brown v. Board of Education, which cited Plessy v. Ferguson as precedent. It was a 9-0 decision that overturned 60 years of precedent on constitutional grounds.

It happens ALL THE TIME.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News