SCOTUS Decision Reversal History?
- Thread starter gdesloge
- Start date
- Status
highorder
Member
Sure, you don't hear much about "Separate but equal" these days, do you?
Plessy v. Ferguson stood until Brown v. Board of Education.
Plessy v. Ferguson stood until Brown v. Board of Education.
highorder
Member
http://www.answers.com/topic/reversals-of-supreme-court-decisions
This mentions Constitutional amendment and congressional action.
From the Wikipedia entry above (thank you):
For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases.[7] The U.S. Supreme Court has further explained as follows:
[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.
—Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944).[2]
[edit]
gd
This mentions Constitutional amendment and congressional action.
From the Wikipedia entry above (thank you):
For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases.[7] The U.S. Supreme Court has further explained as follows:
[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.
—Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944).[2]
[edit]
gd
Possible but not likely. Especially with Elena Kagan's comment today:
"I do think that Heller is the law going forward," she said. "I have not had, myself, the occasion to delve into the history that the courts dealt with in Heller. But I have absolutely no reason to think that the court's analysis was incorrect in any way. I accept the court's analysis and will apply it going forward." She went on: "I do think that those decisions [Heller and McDonald] are settled law and are entitled to all of the weight that any precedent of the Supreme Court has," said Kagan.
"I do think that Heller is the law going forward," she said. "I have not had, myself, the occasion to delve into the history that the courts dealt with in Heller. But I have absolutely no reason to think that the court's analysis was incorrect in any way. I accept the court's analysis and will apply it going forward." She went on: "I do think that those decisions [Heller and McDonald] are settled law and are entitled to all of the weight that any precedent of the Supreme Court has," said Kagan.
trapperjohn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 567
Sotomayer also said that Heller was "settled law". Didnt stop her from going against Mcdonald.
chicago guy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 21
Kagan's comment sounds good, until you remember that Sotomeyer said, during her confirmation, that Heller was "settled law," which is about the same as stare decisis.
CoRoMo
Member
Right. A future court packed with the likes of the four dissenters and Kagan, wouldn't hesitate to reverse McDonald, Heller, you name it. This is pretty much the reason why mistakenly electing the wrong POTUS candidate doesn't happen ever again. Appointments are for life, not just a congressional or presidential term.
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
How about Cruikshank and Presser?? Both were overruled yesterday.
The "right" the Supremes asserted (state governments can't absolutely prohibit someone from owning a pistol in their house from protection) is pretty feeble. It could easily be allowed by a future court to be redefined into insignificance, by restrictions on the types of guns that can be owned, how they can be stored, and irksome restrictions on purchase.
We are a long, long way from a meaningful Second Ammendment. Hopefully, it is the "beginning of the end" for gun bans. It will take a lot of work and money though.
We are a long, long way from a meaningful Second Ammendment. Hopefully, it is the "beginning of the end" for gun bans. It will take a lot of work and money though.
I doubt Heller will be directly overturned. There is plenty of room left by the phrases about "reasonable restrictions" to make gun ownership difficult without actually overturning it.
I think there is a sensitivity to the broad range of opinion. They will overturn a decision if they feel the majority of the country has left it behind. They won't over turn it if it's still pretty much 50/50 except in rare circumstances. (Row v Wade might be one given a conservative majority and the right case.)
I think there is a sensitivity to the broad range of opinion. They will overturn a decision if they feel the majority of the country has left it behind. They won't over turn it if it's still pretty much 50/50 except in rare circumstances. (Row v Wade might be one given a conservative majority and the right case.)
"We are a long, long way from a meaningful Second Ammendment. Hopefully, it is the "beginning of the end" for gun bans. It will take a lot of work and money though."
The good news from Heller and McDonald is that we are at the end of the end of the debate over individual right. Wasn't it just 3 years ago this was a raging controversy with many of those who held the keys to mass communication and opinion solidly featuring the collective right? The only place you will hear that dead horse whinny is in the comments sections of the editorial coulmns. We should be happy but vigilant. We didn't get pushed off the beach but meaningful liberty is still ahead. Have a smoke, take a look skyward, relax a moment and share a laugh. It will be a lot of work and money but more importantly it will take the same kind of clear targeted goals these two landmark cases provided not a pell mell rush inland thinking we're just gonna roll over the land out of righteousness.
The good news from Heller and McDonald is that we are at the end of the end of the debate over individual right. Wasn't it just 3 years ago this was a raging controversy with many of those who held the keys to mass communication and opinion solidly featuring the collective right? The only place you will hear that dead horse whinny is in the comments sections of the editorial coulmns. We should be happy but vigilant. We didn't get pushed off the beach but meaningful liberty is still ahead. Have a smoke, take a look skyward, relax a moment and share a laugh. It will be a lot of work and money but more importantly it will take the same kind of clear targeted goals these two landmark cases provided not a pell mell rush inland thinking we're just gonna roll over the land out of righteousness.
- Status
Similar threads
