"the justices wrestled with the consequences of their far-reaching 2022 decision, declaring that in order for a gun law to be constitutional, it has to be analogous to a law that existed at the nation's founding in the late 1700s. The question Tuesday was how precise that analog has to be."
Is it a profoundly stupid and biased decision or a power grab to re-litigate a ton of precedence so the trump 🤡 court can do whatever they want?
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211226091/supreme-court-guns-domestic-abuse
@maniajack no.
It's a check on the power of the executive branch, keeping it in line with the democratic process instead of giving it a blank check to act as it wishes.
And that is especially important because occasionally someone like Trump will be elected, and we need to make sure his power is limited.
@maniajack the US system doesn't leave any such choice up to any single individual, though. There are checks and balances.
Thomas didn't act unilaterally.
Rather, Thomas's opinion was joined by most of the members of the Supreme Court and was itself built on rulings going back into the history of the SCOTUS and deep into the history of courts below.
Stories focusing on personalities instead of processes or arguments make for good drama and clickbait, but they don't really inform the public as to what's going on with their governments.
Regardless, I suppose I'm talking about checks and balances in general. The Court refused to grant executive branches powers that they legally don't have, even if the restraints involved a reference to history.
@volkris I'm not sure I follow how the hyper-originalist opinion from Clarence Thomas saying modern gun laws must be tied back to the 1700s ties into your statement? Are you just talking gun rights in general protecting against the executive branch?