To those of you who are mad at the Supreme Court over two of its most recent rulings, let me agree with you. To a point.
I also agree-- to a point-- with those who celebrate those rulings.
I don't consider the Supreme Court to be credible, and haven't for years. Not since I recovered from the brainwashing I endured as an inmate in "public" schools.
The Supreme Court stole for themselves the power to be the final say on what the Constitution means back in 1803-- this power wasn't theirs to exercise, but belonged to the people. They didn't like this state of affairs so they changed things so they'd have more power. The public was fooled into going along.
Sometimes the Court gets things partly right, even under these conditions.
The Supreme Court was correct to strike down the illegal New York state regulations on concealed carry licensing, but then carved out too much breathing room for tyranny. The Constitution doesn't allow any restrictions, or even any government oversight, on gun ownership or possession. The Court wasn't honest on this point. They still support the imaginary political authority of politicians-- and their stormtroopers in legislation enforcement-- to do things they are clearly forbidden to do. The excuse that they've done similar things for a long time doesn't hold water. Historical rights violations are still rights violations and need to end immediately.
Political criminals screaming about "gun safety" and vulgar reasoning ("common sense") are lying for effect.
Then the Court's overturning of Roe v Wade doesn't mean what so many seem to believe. The government was, nowhere in the Constitution, directed to allow abortions, nor empowered to prohibit them. The document is silent on abortions, as it is on most things which don't (or shouldn't) involve government. An earlier court created that "discovery" out of thin air to please their side. Something which isn't addressed in the Constitution must be left up to the individual, but leaving it up to the states may be a small step in the right direction.
I still dislike both sides in the abortion wars more than I can express in polite company. I am not pro-life; I am pro-liberty. Without life, there is no liberty... but you won't miss it and won't care because you're dead. Without liberty, life is a hellscape.
As long as it stays out of your life, government is tolerable. When it meddles, it isn't.
-
Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon
"Something that isn’t addressed in the Constitution must be left up to the individual, but leaving it up to the states may be a small step in the right direction."
ReplyDeleteRoe left abortion largely up to the individual. Dobbs centralized it to the states. And it seems to have been one of the "unenumerated rights" alluded to in the 9th Amendment (all of the original states based their law on English common law, which held that abortion could not be prohibited prior to "quickening").
You may well be right.
DeleteAgain, this illustrates why I intensely dislike both sides of the abortion war-- neither side seems honest to me. But the pro-abortion side is now working overtime to tip the scales against them. That could change again-- as it has many times during my life, where one side or the other is pushing me away from them harder than the other side is at the moment.
(And I hate this column's headline, too. Maybe I'm just miserable today.)