|
Phydeaux -> RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? (11/16/2013 9:24:22 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yeah, cuz they never ever look at things from any different angles, do they? Noooo, not them. Once ruled, it stays forever ruled. [8|]
You'll have to forgive me for not taking your word on it, Ken. You may be right. You may be wrong. We'll just have to wait and see. And, if you're right, remind me and I'll make a post declaring you were right. You'll have to remind me because I'm sure I won't remember in a year and a half (and, that's not even the least bit false, sadly).
The Court has never revisited an issue with no change to the makeup of the Court and to the best of my knowledge has never reversed a ruling while any of the justices from the original ruling were still alive. The number of reversals of rulings by the Court is relatively small and there is simply no way the Roberts Court can reverse itself on this without looking political which would give Obama the excuse to pack the court which Roberts knows and wants to avoid.
EDIT: Actually the court did revisit capital punishment but it never reversed itself. It allowed a different trial procedure and some other statutory changes.
Once again just uneducated poppycock. Although reverses is a tad strong - the supremes more "refine" a ruling than outright reverse.
If you want evidence of that look at oh - I don't know
Affirmative action
1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke,
1995 Tompkins v. Alabama State University
1998 Farmer v. Ramsay
1998 Pollard v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
2003, the U.S. Supreme Courtruled in the Gratz v. Bollinger
2003, Grutter v. Bollinger
You could look at oh... Gun Control:
Muscarello v. United States, - U.S. - (1998)
Caron v. U.S., - U.S. - (1998)
Bryan v. United States, - U.S. - (1998)
Printz v. U.S., - U.S. - (1997)
Bailey v. U.S., - U.S. - (1995)
Beecham v. U.S., - U.S. - (1994)
Smith v. U.S., 508 U.S. -, (1993)
Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)
Church of Scientology v. IRS, 484 U.S. 9 (1987)
Barrett v. U.S., 423 U.S. 212 (1976)
And more than 100 more.
So to say that a court never reviews an issue more than once is well simply idiotic, and evidence of a lack of knowledge before speaking.
And before you say that the supremes have never reviewed an individual law more than once: (also idiotic, but, hey)
Flemming v. Nestor (1960) decision
Steward Machine Company v. Davis,
Helvering v. Davis,
... to name a few of many.
|
|
|
|
