Firstly, the supreme court decides what the 2A means and they decided it does not mean that. The NYC law spit in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That can't be allowed.
You can argue that the previous decision was wrong all you want (I personally think it was), but you can't allow the states to just ignore the supreme court and do whatever they want or all constitutional protections are meaningless.
In fact the ruling relies, for purposes of establishing that restrictions on abortion are an established part of the American tradition, on pointing to the existence of a bunch of state abortion laws that existed in the 1860s, which were all ruled unconstitutional in Roe.
It's effectively saying 'the existence of state laws that attempt to restrict a right, even ones which have been rule unconstitutional, is itself evidence that it's okay for states to impose restrictions on constitutional rights.'
Which seems like a very odd argument to make the day after striking down a 100 year old NY State law restricting gun carry rights on the basis that there's no evidence of a long tradition of such restrictions being passed by states.
An extension of my first point is that the supreme court decides what is constitutional and what isn't. My point was that only the supreme court can be allowed to overturn the supreme court. That's how it works. If the court decides that a previous court was wrong, then that's fine. That's how the system is designed.
tl;dr we have a really dogshit system that essentially puts 9 people in charge of everything
It puts them in charge of interpreting the constitution, I thought. What a stretch to make them seem like on a whim law makers or tyrannical.
Governments tends to become tyrannical especially as they scale and gain more power. That's what the fabulous constitution was drafted after for the most part: to protect people against the government(s). Not put by Trump or other conservative to exerce more control over people. Here quite the opposite.
I see in this overturn a move to re-establish distance and reduce the over reach of governance, federal legislation here, the supreme court attacking itself. The constitution still somehow works in the U.S, and supreme judges doing a great job at keeping it honored.
> What a stretch to make them seem like on a whim law makers or tyrannical.
It's not a stretch. They are literally "on a whim law makers." They decide what issues they want to take up and change the way they interpret the constitution depending on how they want to rule on an issue. In theory, they could be held in check by congress, but in practice that is impossible. Especially since the justice's are political weapons of congress. There's a reason the supreme court nominations have been huge campaign points for the last few elections. They have basically unchecked power.
> The constitution still somehow works in the U.S, and supreme judges doing a great job at keeping it honored.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. They choose how they want to interpret it depending on how they want to rule. There's no consistency and it's frankly a disgrace. Has been for a while too, this isn't something new to this current court.
I have to concede, a long series of rulings are a disgrace. In the long run of this institution, not sure on the ratio of questionable vs rightful vs plain calamities judges have come up with historically. I stand on my previous comment and as you say would agree to disagree: the supreme court system _still_ works, somehow. Institutions at large are in chamble in the West, we could make a special case here but no obvious dissonance that I can see or hear from these judges. On this ruling. Politically biased? Of course. Corrupt? Not quite, but indirectly, very likely.
Thanks for your thoughts. Agreed on them not being kept in check by Congress, not sure how the balance of power work in details, it would naturally more sense that congress gets at least some electing power and surely an avenue for dismissing
them for misconduct, by 2/3 of votes or whatever. That would sound more balanced than the whichever passing president given the election or some judges who then sit on their thrones for life.
It would be useful to provide at least a concrete example. Sounding very undoubtul doesn't imply being right or argumenting based on the truth. I will however do further reading and find out what may be so outrageous this court might have been up to.
The supreme court spat in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That's the reality of what's going on right now.
If the supreme court cannot respect precedent or at least provide a very good reason why precedent should be overruled, then what we have is a country ruled by a set of god kings with zero accountability. When faith in the system crumbles as a result of extreme partisan decision making, what you get is balkanization.
> The NYC law spit in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That can't be allowed.
Yet what we recently learned is what the supreme court decides is of little consequence. It's just the temporary whim of whatever political party happens to be in power. In 10, 20 or whatever years it takes to get a liberal court back, then roe v wade comes back and the court reinterprets a "well regulated militia" to mean, ah, a "well regulated militia".
This "well regulated militia" stuff is so disgustingly ignorant. And people keep parroting it like it is some kind of "gotem".
First of all, what do you think a militia even is? It is a group of CITIZENS that form an ad-hoc fighting force.
Secondly, the amendment says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms".
It doesn't say "the right of the military". It doesn't say "the right of the militia". And it doesn't say "the right of peace officers."
When the Declaration of Independence was drafted, "We the People" did not mean "military".
Thirdly, the Bill of Rights explicitly grants rights to people, NOT the government and NOT the military. Yet somehow, conveniently, that is different for the 2A?
You might not like the 2A, but the meaning is clear and supported by history. This "well-regulated militia" nonsense is the climate-change-denial of the 2A.
> Firstly, the supreme court decides what the 2A means and they decided it does
not mean that. The NYC law spit in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That can't be allowed.
I'm always surprised by how few people realize that the SCOTUS doesn't make laws for states. I'm also surprised at how deeply convinced the notion of "the federal government and SCOTUS supersede state laws" is ingrained into our culture.
The SCOTUS only provides opinions and jurisprudence on matters. They don't "make laws" and can't command anything with any sort of enforceable power. Abortion could have been abolished yesterday, last month or even last decade if any state wanted it to.
Any state level Supreme Court can run contrary to the judgements of the SCOTUS without having to fear enforceable retribution. We've seen this recently with the case of interstate "travel bans" during COVID, "Sanctuary Cities" during Trump's first couple months of presidency and the spotty legalization of marijuana in certain states.
You can argue that the previous decision was wrong all you want (I personally think it was), but you can't allow the states to just ignore the supreme court and do whatever they want or all constitutional protections are meaningless.