it’s really critical to not accept this interpretation as “correct” even if the Court adopts it. it’s wrong. racist and wrong.
Heller doesn’t mean the 2nd amendment is an individual right. it’s wrongly decided (and people insist it says things it doesn’t say). this would be the same.
Heller doesn’t mean the 2nd amendment is an individual right. it’s wrongly decided (and people insist it says things it doesn’t say). this would be the same.
Reposted from
Corey Rayburn Yung
The Wurman/Barnett op/ed is the next step in normalizing the frivilous birthright citizenship argument. In a few months, conservatives will contend that the only reason liberals didn't take the argument seriously is because of their blindspots. By then, judges will feel comfortable endorsing it.
Comments
(“Natural law” arguments fall apart on the same grounds.)
If anyone would like to learn more
They ruled that ONLY guns commonly used in the military are protected (then incorrectly ruled short shotguns weren’t in use when they were)
Bowers v Hardwick was wrong the day it was issued & nothing changed in the next 17 yrs that made Lawrence right except we organized the hell out of our communities. But the case law was unchanged.
The SCOTUS may not always be right but it's still the SCOTUS.
And right now it's the only thing standing between us a fascism.
But the SCOTUS has decided the remedy for the above to be impeachment.
And they can still attempt to ''block' his actions on constitutional grounds.
We shall see.