Uh, yeah, as a bum with no relevant schooling at all, I feel confident saying Breyer was an idiot on that one.
"If future courts honor Stare Decisis Heller and McDonald will stand. Sitting justices have said Heller should be reversed, not that it will be. But they can dilute/nullify it significantly by reducing the level of scrutiny lower courts use in applying it."
Failing to honor Stare Decisis opens up all sorts of skeleton closets that no one wants opened; which is the reason the rule exists in the first place ("the issues were settled, darnit!"). Likewise, failing to consistently require strictest of scrutiny when constitutional rights are at issue would prove to be an incredibly corrosive force on our civil liberties in short order; certain rights given deference over others, certain regions, certain people, certain
classes of people... I would say that any judge could see the bottom of that hill clearly from where we now stand, but we still get stuff like the opinion out of Chicago recently, so I guess they haven't yet.
"A moderate filling Scalia's seat can be weathered. Loss of the Senate and White House with an open seat on the court will be a perfect storm."
Agreed, but I still don't see it happening. This cycle looks to be ripe for high turnout on both sides (well, at least if Hillary doesn't win & subsequently get indicted & drop out before the election), which to me suggests that at worst we get the status quo; divided government. If, despite all the headwinds they face today, the Democrats are unstoppable...well, that simply doesn't make sense if they can't even get UBC's passed at the federal level after Newtown. Call me again in eight years when the Republicans/etc are the incumbent party who has everyone ticked off, and I might be more inclined towards doom & gloom, but by then we'll also have had a couple more court appointments in our favor.
Why, it's almost as if the system is self-regulating, or something
TCB
