4 ms·
The thing is, you can always find a rationale for whatever answer you want. So the evidence here wouldn't be to look at one individual case and see an obviousl
by gwd 2y ago
The thing is, you can always find a rationale for whatever answer you want. So the evidence here wouldn't be to look at one individual case and see an obviously bad argument. The evidence would be to ask, are there any cases where the judges ruled on principle against their political preferences?
Unfortunately I don't have exact cases, but there are many claims that conservative justices are very much "states rights" when it comes to things like abortion, but very much not "states rights" when it comes to things like gun control.
- ImJamal 2y ago> Unfortunately I don't have exact cases, but there are many claims that conservative justices are very much "states rights" when it comes to things like abortion, but very much not "states rights" when it comes to things like gun control. That is because of the incorporation of the bill of rights. The current interpretation of the 14th amendment is that some of the Amendments in Bill of Rights apply to both the federal and state governments. The second amendment is one of those amendments (at least according to the conservative justices) and as such they should be protected at the federal level. Abortion is not listed in the constitution and as such the 10th amendment takes precedence and the states can decide. The more liberal justices do the same thing with amendments and come up with their own justification for which amendments are fully and partially incorporated.