One good result of the Chicago gun-ban case

[Little-Acorn]

Liberals will finally stop insisting that "The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means!"

-------------------------------

BTW, remember when new Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor was going thru her confirmation hearings, and she was asked about her view on the recent DC v. Heller case that affirmed that the right to own a gun was an individual right? She said then, that she agreed it was an individual right.

She voted against the individual-right view today in this case.

 

[Gipper]

Liberals lie. Really?

 

[Pandora]

Liberals lie. Really?

Well wise Latino's lie, now we know that for sure.

 

[Pandora]

Liberals will finally stop insisting that "The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means!"

HA HA HA that is a good one!


They will also fight like hell to get things back the way they had it, and at the same time tell us to leave abortion alone, the SC has spoken.

 

[Pandora]

Liberals will finally stop insisting that "The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means!"

-------------------------------

BTW, remember when new Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor was going thru her confirmation hearings, and she was asked about her view on the recent DC v. Heller case that affirmed that the right to own a gun was an individual right? She said then, that she agreed it was an individual right.

She voted against the individual-right view today in this case.

Have you been following the Disclosure Act and the NRA?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

First the constitution is what the SC says it means....its a simple fact of life, if they had ruled guns can be banned...then the law of the land would have been that they can...had they ruled that they can't it would be the law of land...but really all they did was ruled and sent it back to lower courts, from what I have heard it was a pretty weak ruling that if anything made gun laws less clear.

if the constitution says one thing, and the government and SC both go against it...who will stop it? There should have been no slavery, and woman and blacks free to vote since the day the nation was born under the constitution...but the goverment and SC did not see it that way, so they did not...did the fact it was written on some paper mean they could just be free or vote still? No...becuse The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means