The other two branches don't follow the US Constitution, why should the judicial?
the constitution is meaningless, or at best, secondary to the agenda.
Inside every Leftist politician, judge, journalist and ‘celebrity’ - in fact, every Leftist in public life - is a Little Dictator struggling to get out.
Shouldn’t be any great surprise. Liberals are all about the rules, at least when they’re for “thee” and not “me”. In fact even on this particular issue, they’re contradicting themselves from when they contradicted their earlier contradictions. They’re so concerned about “stare decisis” when confirming a potentially conservative jurist, but the decisions they seek to enshrine are far newer and shorter lived than the practices and rulings THEY overturned, thus LESS deserving of deference than those liberals were happy to cast aside.
it is a stupid question for a supreme court nominee.
stare decisis does not apply to them because THEY are the highest court with no other court above them.
The supreme court always has the power to overule itself. Reporters are just too stupid to get it. (cnn’s toobin is just plain stupid and should have his JD revoked)
Concepts like 'stare decisis' (the legal principle that obliges judges to respect precedents established by prior decisions) that were so important during the confirmation hearings of Justice Roberts, mean nothing to the sitting liberal justices.Thanks jazusamo.
Nothing real means anything to liberals. It’s all what they say it is when they say it is. Alice in Wonderland time for all.
Can we now charge Sotomayer with perjury for lying to Congress when she said that she believed that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right?
Short of impeachment there are no checks on the USSC. This makes it unique and arguably the most dangerous branch of government. Especially now that many justices just cloth political objectives with legal sophistry and pass it off as jurisprudence.
They also vote ignoring the possibility of starting a civil war.
Cornell has links to the opinions in HTML
Quoting Scalia (Bolding is mine)
Wow. In the language of a supreme court ruling, thems pracically fighting words. Scalia pretty much came right out and said the minority were practicing judicial malpractice.
Exactly what is covered is not clear. But whatever else is in, he knows that the right to keep and bear arms is out, despite its being as deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition, Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted), as a right can be, see District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U. S. ___, ______, ______, ______ (2008) (slip op., at 2021, 2630, 4144). I can find no other explanation for such certitude except that Justice Stevens, despite his forswearing of personal and private notions, post , at 21 (internal quotation marks omitted), deeply believes it should be out.