>And by your logic, once a SCOTUS decision is made it can never be revisited. I never implied any such thing. In fact, I'm arguing that the exact opposite, usi

>And by your logic, once a SCOTUS decision is made it can never be revisited. I never implied any such thing. In fact, I'm arguing that the exact opposite, using DC v. Heller as an example of how SCOTUS can reinterpret a foundational right despite hundreds of years of precedent to the opposite. That speech with implicit violence should be ruled as unprotected speech in spite of hundreds of years of precedent to the opposite.