It’s all rooted in the High Court’s decision to eliminate nearly 50 years of case law. But it is also a powerful measure of the widening gap between Americans and their Supreme Court.
“Rho was terribly wrong from the beginning. The reasoning was very weak, the decision had detrimental consequences, and instead of providing a national solution to the abortion problem, Rho and Casey intensified the debate and deepened the division. rice field” Opinion is stated.
later: “It’s time to pay attention to the Constitution and return the abortion issue to the elected representatives of the people.”
And finally: “We end this opinion at the beginning. Abortion presents a deep moral issue. The Constitution does not prohibit citizens of each state from regulating or banning abortion. Law and Casey do so. Made the authority arrogant. People and their elected representatives. “
Let’s take a look at the 2017 Gorsuch confirmation hearing again. Faced with a question from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gorsuch asks South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham if Trump has asked him in an interview to overturn the Roe v. Wade case. Was done. After a short pause, Gorsuch squinted and replied, “No … I would have gone out of the door.” Gorsuch said, “That’s not what the judge does.”
“Some of the value of precedent-and it has a lot of value, it’s our history, and because our history is inherently valuable, it’s worth it in itself. Deterministic. “
“Once the case is resolved, it makes the law more deterministic,” Gorsuch added. “The problems that were once hotly contested are no longer hotly contested. We move forward.”
Since then, Kavanaugh has repeatedly returned to the importance of case law and the Supreme Court’s “precedent of case law” in the 2018 confirmatory match.
“One of the important things to remember about the Roe v. Wade case, as you know, has been reaffirmed many times over the last 45 years, and most importantly, the 1992 planned parent-child relationship v. Casey. “In a confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh added that Casey analyzed the” gaze determinants “when explaining why the case was not overturned.
“It’s not just a normal case that was decided and not revisited, but Casey decided to specifically revisit it, apply case law, and reconfirm it,” Kavanaugh said. “It sets Casey as a precedent.”
“My policy views, my moral beliefs, my religious beliefs should not be, nor should I, determine the case. It would be inconsistent with my judicial oath,” she said. Said.
“The court’s decision to dismiss Roe and Casey has a serious impact on the legal system, regardless of how they view these cases. A narrower decision that rejects the false line of feasibility. Is significantly less anxious and needs nothing more to decide on this case. ” He wrote.
from: “I will determine the question we gave the review to answer-whether to ban all abortion restrictions before the previously recognized rights of abortion become viable, abortion after 15 weeks of gestation. The ban is inevitably illegal. The answer to that question is no, and you don’t have to go any further to determine this case. “
Simply put, Roberts argued that this doesn’t have to be the case for all-or-nothing. He proposed a limited resolution in oral arguments last December, but apparently there was no real momentum against the court’s conservative block.
Opinions released Friday showed no sign that those who joined the ally were shaken by the view that Rho was “terribly wrong.”
Roberts aimed to “leave another day whether or not to deny the right to abortion altogether.” Arito denied that possibility, saying, “The quest for the Middle Way will only postpone the day when we are forced to confront the problem we have just decided. The turmoil caused by Law and Casey will be prolonged. This court and country-to tackle the real problem without further delay. “
The High Court has revoked the New York State Gun Act, which was enacted over a century ago and restricts the removal of hidden pistols out of the home.
“New York states only issue public licenses if the applicant indicates a special need for self-defense, so we conclude that the state’s license system is unconstitutional,” Thomas said in a majority of courts. I wrote it 6 to 3.
It’s not just public affairs law like the New York rule in court. Virtually other types of gun control, such as age-based restrictions, restrictions on certain types of firearms, and restrictions on large magazines, will be scrutinized by courts.
About two-thirds (66%) of Americans say that the law on the sale of firearms needs to be stricter. This is the highest since 2018, up 14 points from last fall. With 66% of independents and 38% of Republicans, we support stricter legislation.
According to Gallup, this is the highest level of support for the Democratic Party since 2001, comparable to or close to the highest points of independents and Republicans.
The majority also said they prefer the new law on guns in addition to the stricter enforcement of the current law (55%), and 42% only want stricter enforcement.
Considering this, reading Thomas’s opinion that gun restrictions must be measured by national history, not by the country’s urgent public security claims, the gap between the court and the country is astonishing. I’m not alone. But what remedies, if any, can help connect the High Court with the people it serves remains an unresolved question.
“It’s an isolated court that has lost all the reality of public opinion and the way Americans live. Instead of serving as a check for key control, it helps the court’s six judges establish a right-wing ideology. “I said in a cannas speech.
But keep in mind that the Biden administration is already considering amending the Supreme Court, which has caused little controversy.
CNN’s Jennifer Agiesta, Ariel Edwards-Levy, and Joan Biskupic contributed to this report.
Source: www.cnn.com
