The present Supreme Court has issued audacious decisions that have severely damaged its reputation and that of the entire judiciary branch of government. The court has, despite the constitutional separation of church and state, decided that tax money can be used to support religious-based private schools.
Another decision blocks the right of state governments to enact gun control legislation. Their reasoning for this decision represents a gross overreach of power and misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. The court’s rationale for this decision and others is that the Constitution has to be interpreted literally as written at the time of its adoption.
At the time of adoption the guns available were muskets. I’m all for the allowing the ownership of muskets. At the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment there were no such thing as bullets, much less semi-automatic weapons. The invention of bullets didn’t occur until the 1830s. Obviously the logic of the court on this issue is contradictory and indefensible.
The court has also decided that women have no rights when it comes to making reproductive decisions. Those decisions are not the providence of a woman and her doctor, but of the state. Following that logic the state could mandate that men cannot have vasectomies. Politicians need to get out of people’s bedrooms and look into what’s going on in corporate boardrooms.
In addition to those atrocities, Justice Thomas has expressed a desire to obstruct several other rights, including those of LGBT citizens, same sex marriage and the use of contraception. Apparently, in his mind, overpopulation of the planet isn’t a problem. The legality of interracial marriage is curiously missing from the list of rights he proposes to take away.
The cynical and disingenuous rationale for these ludicrous decisions is that these specific rights are not in the Constitution. There are a multitude of rights not included in that document. A woman’s right to vote (not until 1920), freedom from slavery (not until 1864), senators elected rather than appointed by state legislators are a few of once non-included rights.
Apparently the desire of this Supreme Court is to take us backward to when slavery was common, women had no more rights than livestock, witches were burnt at the state, disease was treated by blood letting and incantations, and many believed the world was flat. Importantly, the right of the Supreme Court to determine what is or isn’t legal is something else that isn’t in the Constitution. That authority was seized by the Marshall Court in 1803 in the Marbury v. Madison decision.
There is no defensible logic for what this court is deciding regarding these matters.
Commented
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.