 | | One of our favorite issues!
|
|
(URL) the Supreme Court *ever* interpreted the 2nd to apply expressly to the individual? Dave! (I probably won't get too involved in any debates that ensue regarding this issue, since I have previously demonstrated a somewhat hot temper on the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of our favorite issues!
|
|
(...) I am not a lawyer, Dave!, but I think the answer is no. But that doesn't really mean anything -- not if you understand the Ashwander Doctrine which I have mentioned here in debate previously (see: (URL) The main thing is the court will avoid (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of our favorite issues!
|
|
(...) Upon rereading it, I agree. It's a bit more scattershot than I'd initially thought. (...) I suppose that, as a matter of practice, to do otherwise would cause the judiciary to sort of bleed into the legislature. If there is any other way to (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of our favorite issues!
|
|
(...) Consider also that only your first appeal to a higher court is a matter of right, all subsequent appeals must be granted certiorari. That means to reach the Supreme Court you have to have something that the courts are even willing to (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of our favorite issues!
|
|
(...) Absolutely! My perennial bugaboo is the ol' "Creationism in public schools" mantra that's lately mysteriously popular here in the Dark Ages of Western PA. I'd love the Supreme Court to say once and for all "it ain't science and never will be, (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
