• stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I dunno. A previous one actually caused the civil war by declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Then there’s separate but equal. Then there’s the fact that the Court decided that the constitution gave it the power to rule in the constitutionality of laws even though it doesn’t say that. Then there’s saying that the second amendment applies to people rather than militias.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Wouldn't you know it, the Federalist Society implicitly supports all of those supreme courts. Their president Leonard Leo is behind half of the current supreme court appointments

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was with you until the last sentence. Nobody should complain about having rights. Support all rights for all Americans.

      Rights don't just grow on trees you know, they are hard as fuck to get.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Then there’s saying that the second amendment applies to people rather than militias.

      In order to protect a Collective Right the 2A had to protect an Individual Right. It literally couldn't function any other way. In the context of the 1A it would be as if there was a Right To Assembly (Collective Right) but no right to Free Speech (Individual Right). That interpretation isn't new either, it's present in nearly every SCOTUS case that involved the 2nd Amendment.

      I agree that SCOTUS has problems but their take on the 2A is well supported by previous decisions and historical documents.