Comment by legitster
5 hours ago
Sotomayor literally made the same types of claims about DC v Heller during her confirmation hearing, despite later joining a dissent to overturn the results. So if that's the case it runs both ways.
It's also worth pointing out that there is a gulf of difference between how a court interprets law and the constitution, and how a court interprets a previous "Precedent". Courts have a lot of power to throw out or reverse previous precedent, but much less permanent power to change interpretation of the laws themselves.
Interested to read about these claims (and which case intended to overturn DC v Heller) but that would just make the Roberts court more political.
> Courts have a lot of power to throw out or reverse previous precedent
Yes, we've seen the death of stare decisis.
> less permanent power to change interpretation of the laws themselves.
They have to work harder to do it but this court has not been shy about reinterpeting everything through the Calvinball (originalism) lens.