News out of California: Preliminary Injunction granted in Gun Show case

[Racer X]

without stare decisis it all falls apart into a steaming pile of poo, and devolves into chaos. The same case in Texas should have exactly the same ruling in NY, CA and Wyoming. But they don't.

And that is why judges within the 9th are calling out their colleges, and have been for decades. Judges are blatantly ignoring precedents whenever it suits their agenda, and their patrons. Same in Illinois. Judges cost a million there.

[Tiangou]

Judges are obliged to follow the law.

Prosecutors are obliged to seek the truth.

Lawyers are obligated to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

These concepts are fundamental to our republic and every attorney can recite these concepts without a second thought.

Just a few decades ago, it was all quite meaningful.

Your way lands us in a “pile of poo.”

[pdq]

Smote wrote:
without stare decisis it all falls apart into a steaming pile of poo, and devolves into chaos.

…which is exactly, exactly why this SCOTUS is so problematic; they overturn and/or rewrite long precedent at the drop of a hat.

And it’s not just 2A cases (although those are up there with the worst). They’ve completely rewritten campaign finance laws and 501c3 corporations, for instance. Those were originally set up as completely non-political non-profits. But then “non-political” became 51% of spending/activity is non-political. Now it means almost nothing at all. There was a reason that the IRS took a closer look at new 501c3’s that had clearly political names, like Tea Party blah-blah-blah. And the Right howled that the IRS had been weaponized against them (!) So now, basically anything goes.

Citizen’s United rewrote campaign contributions; That decision upended long precedent and blithely maintained that unlimited dark money contributions will not lead to corruption, nor cannot even lead to the appearance of corruption. That’s a “black is white and up is down” decision that ranks right up there with the much earlier “corporations are people and have all the rights of citizens” (but conveniently, can’t be imprisoned for crimes).

The Voting Rights Act. Roe v Wade. 50-60 years of precedent overturned at a whim. I could go on.

Between this, and things like Justices being bought undisclosed luxury RVs and buying houses for their mothers, there should be no wonder that trust in the Supremes are in the tank.

So your newfound insistence on stare decisis rings a little hollow. They’re playing purely political Calvinball, and have been for a decade or more now.