Clearly the SCOTUS extremists don’t care to set the court’s legitimacy on fire | Events and Movies | Tampa

0
Click to enlarge

Photo by Fred Schilling, United States Supreme Court Collection

Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor .
Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Friday, five extremists at the Supreme Court dismantled the right to abortion giving states the right to dictate women’s health care choices.

Hours before I wrote this, following a series of mass shootings, these same extremists – plus a chief justice who only appears moderate in comparison –ruled that the right to bear arms is so sacrosanct that it doesn’t matter if state restrictions do stupid things like save lives.

In both cases, the majority will probably have drawn on wrong (Judge Samuel Alito on abortion) and selective historical interpretations (Judge Clarence Thomas on guns) to wrap their ideological fanaticism in original flim-flam. The defining tenet of contemporary jurisprudence, it seems, is that we’re stuck with everything the 18th century patriarchs who founded this country didn’t dream up – assault rifles, women being not the property of their husband, etc. – because “historical tradition” trumps not just democracy, but fucking common sense.

“To justify its regulation,” wrote Thomas in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, “government cannot simply assume that regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historic tradition of gun regulation.

To show how absurd this “historical tradition” reasoning is: the New York gun law that the Supreme Court struck down on Thursday is more than a century old. Roe v. Wade died just before his 50th birthday. The Supreme Court first recognized the right of an individual to possess a firearm for self-defence, not carry a firearm outside the house, you just have to own it—In 2008.

As Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice, pointed out in the Washington Post“In 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified, New York City had a population of 33,000. Today, it has more than 8 million. To me, as a New York City resident, the idea that thousands or hundreds of thousands of people might be walking around armed, thinking they’re a “good guy with a gun”, is downright terrifying. .

Judge Thomas, who did not resign despite his wife’s involvement in Donald Trump’s coup attempt, ignored this.

“It is true that people sometimes congregate in ‘sensitive places’ and it is also true that law enforcement professionals are generally presumed to be available in such places,” Thomas wrote. “… [But] there is no historical basis for New York actually declaring Manhattan Island a “sensitive place” simply because it is overcrowded and generally protected by the New York City Police Department.

Think Thomas Logic: New York Can’t Stop People Carrying Guns in Manhattan just because Manhattan is already teeming with armed cops to protect masses of easy targets. Again, safety is secondary to Thomas’ belief that James Madison, who wrote the Second Amendment 44 years before the Colt revolver came on the market– didn’t mean anything by the words “well-regulated militia,” but was okay with the Glock-packing rides in Midtown.

Don’t make a mistake. This decision will result in preventable deaths. Bruen directly affects about a quarter of the country’s population—Residents of New York and six states with similar concealed carry laws. Coincidentally, they understand the five states with the lowest rates of gun violence per capitaas well as California (#7) and Maryland (#18).

That’s not to say New York law didn’t have issues that needed to be addressed. As a group of public defenders of the state Explain“New York enacted its firearms license requirements in the early 20th century to prevent immigrants and people of color from owning firearms. Since its enactment, the law has justified maintaining the discriminatory order and criminalization of black and brown people living in low-income urban communities.

A court installed by a minority applies the whims of the minority to the majority – asserting federalism when it is practical, ignoring it when it is not.

Tweet that

In more competent hands, the Court could have struck down the New York law because of its discriminatory nature. But fighting discrimination doesn’t sit well with Thomas’ apparent goal of taking America back to a time before flushing toilets.

Bruen’s effect doesn’t bother me as much as the reasoning that delivered it. For as much as the majority tried to downplay the scope of his radicalism—Alito: “All we’re deciding in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun in the ‘outside the house for self-defense’ — the practical effect of Bruen’s claims of “historical tradition” will eviscerate gun laws for decades to come.

But the real takeaway from Bruen – and, now, from Dobbs, the abortion case – is that the majority don’t care about burning what little legitimacy he has left. He only cares about advancing his ideological agenda.

As I’ve mentioned before — as we should always mention when discussing this iteration of the Roberts Court — Republican presidents have won the popular vote once since 1988, but they have appointed six of the Court’s nine justices. Democratic senators represented about 40 million more Americans than Republicans who confirmed Trump’s nominations.

A court installed by a minority applies the whims of the minority to the majority – asserting federalism when it is practical, ignoring it when it is not.

In 1937, fresh from a landslide re-election but with a conservative Supreme Court blocking key elements of the New Deal, President Franklin Roosevelt told the American people“We cannot submit our constitutional destiny to the personal judgment of a few men who, fearing the future, would deprive us of the means necessary to face the present.”

The courtesy plan he presented in that radio address has notoriously failed, but not entirely. Reduced support only after short-packing becomes unnecessary; after FDR’s threat, the Court suddenly became sensitive to his reforms.

There is a lesson for modern Democrats watching a vengeful Court unravel a century of progress. As long as the court radicals feel unassailable, the more radical they will become.

Share.

Comments are closed.