Comment by PaulDavisThe1st
1 day ago
Somebody has to bring a new case that presents a novel legal theory/presentation that isn't clearly addressed by the ruling that forms the precedent.
1 day ago
Somebody has to bring a new case that presents a novel legal theory/presentation that isn't clearly addressed by the ruling that forms the precedent.
Additionally, one can argue that the state of the world has changed enough that assumptions made by the USC at the time of precedence require reversal.
only in a new case ....
The court is stacked with so called originalists - history stopped in the eighteenth century.
idk, they wouldn't have given the president nearly absolute immunity back then..
1 reply →