They did quite often during the Warren Court.
They need to do so more now.
I would like to see Wickard v Filburn outright reversed.
You answer is “whining”?
Have a nice day troll.
1 Like
Yep. Have you? It grinds at you so much that you talk about it daily in one way or another, but your knowledge of it seems reduced to a five-second soundbite you heard on the radio.
My answer was yes. You quoted my answer while claiming that I had not answered.
Are you feeling all right?
Can you give a prime example please?
Not only will Wickard not be reversed, it will be used as an excuse for further expansion.
Oddest troll thread in a while.
You are dismissed.
I don’t know why anyone would start a thread that advertises their ignorance of their own country’s laws and judiciary in such odd, assumption tone.
The only troll in this thread is you. It seems odd to you because it is not a troll thread. It requires you to think.
Now if you don’t like it, leave. You aren’t contributing anything but yelling at the movie screen.
Some topics aren’t going to be for you.
1 Like
Then leave. Go post Trump sucks a billion times.
1 Like
In such an odd, assumptive tone.
Edit button here yet?
Is it not? What is the basis for stare decisis?
Why are you such a jackass?
1 Like
Ignore it. All threads go through this little phase. Then they figure out they are way out of their depth and kind of drift away. It will be fine.
2 Likes
So, one more time: the answer is the Constitution.
I’ll have to give the same answer another dozen times I’m sure.
Then in a month, bank on another thread where he claims that no one has answered his question.
A post-count joke from you?
Classic.
The assumption that the original interpretation of the Constitution was correct. Also, consistency.
You to be laboring under the misconception that future decisions ignore the Constitution entirely.
Why do you harbor that odd belief?
Seem to be laboring . . .
Respect is earned.
The basis for stare decisis is in the definition, case precedent. And it is not absolute. Most modern cases that rely on case precedent, themselves, ignored prior case precedent. For decades now we have had courts that were more interested in expanding their own or central governments, power, stare decisis be damned.
