Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mons meg" data-source="post: 2392412" data-attributes="member: 90">The SCOTUS doesn&#039;t &quot;have&quot; to strike all laws that could be construed as relevant to a particular decision.&nbsp; In fact, they almost never work that way from what I have read.&nbsp; When Heller v DC was decided, they didn&#039;t strike down the felon in possession laws, or any other federal gun laws, they specifically left many questions open and tailored their decision to the question at hand.&nbsp; I don&#039;t deny that a more liberal Court could certainly throw out all their own precedents and rule how they pleased, but I highly doubt they would do that.&nbsp; Even the liberal Justices are enamored of what came before.&nbsp; Clarence Thomas is the most likely to toss a precedent if he feels it still wasn&#039;t right, which would work in our favor it would seem to me.I did spend some time reading through Rehnquist&#039;s decision, and it still hinges in the most part on the broader question of whether there is any limit to the Commerce Clause.&nbsp; Here&#039;s the section where he references Bass:<s></s><s></s><s>I think what might be argued here is the definition of an &quot;express jurisdictional element&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; Merely stating &quot;which has traveled in interstate commerce and affects it because we said so&quot; doesn&#039;t require the SCOTUS to take Congress&#039; word for it.&nbsp; They didn&#039;t take their word for it in Lopez, why should they change their mind now?</s><s></s><s>I suppose what this means is this makes me more optimistic that a future SCOTUS would strike down the &quot;new&quot; GFSZA on the same merits as the old one, assuming the Court kept the same general philosophical makeup.&nbsp; In the future, 5 &quot;liberal&quot; justices could certainly do a lot of damage, but that&#039;s a much bigger problem than just this question of school zones.</s><s></s><s>PS: I am already familiar with Wickard, which I consider the legal equivalent of &quot;the day the music died&quot;.&nbsp; <img src="/images/smilies/wink.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)" data-shortname=";)" /></s></blockquote>

[QUOTE="mons meg, post: 2392412, member: 90"] The SCOTUS doesn't "have" to strike all laws that could be construed as relevant to a particular decision. In fact, they almost never work that way from what I have read. When [I]Heller v DC[/I] was decided, they didn't strike down the felon in possession laws, or any other federal gun laws, they specifically left many questions open and tailored their decision to the question at hand. I don't deny that a more liberal Court could certainly throw out all their own precedents and rule how they pleased, but I highly doubt they would do that. Even the liberal Justices are enamored of what came before. Clarence Thomas is the most likely to toss a precedent if he feels it still wasn't right, which would work in our favor it would seem to me. I did spend some time reading through Rehnquist's decision, and it still hinges in the most part on the broader question of whether there is any limit to the Commerce Clause. Here's the section where he references [I]Bass[/I]: [s] I think what might be argued here is the definition of an "express jurisdictional element". Merely stating "which has traveled in interstate commerce and affects it because we said so" doesn't require the SCOTUS to take Congress' word for it. They didn't take their word for it in [I]Lopez[/I], why should they change their mind now? I suppose what this means is this makes me more optimistic that a future SCOTUS would strike down the "new" GFSZA on the same merits as the old one, assuming the Court kept the same general philosophical makeup. In the future, 5 "liberal" justices could certainly do a lot of damage, but that's a much bigger problem than just this question of school zones. PS: I am already familiar with [I]Wickard[/I], which I consider the legal equivalent of "the day the music died". ;)[/s] [/QUOTE]

Verification