So while the immediate impact with abortion may seem like a bad thing to many, having courts only interpret the law before them, and not making up new laws seems to be the correct approach, simply because we do not want 9 non elected people making up new laws that we are bound by.
If you think all this court is doing and has done is interpret the law before them and not make up new laws with their interpretations, how do you explain this?
Vaccines:
View: https://twitter.com/dohamadani/status/1542639727026884610?s=21&t=C0D1SdQnnvs_cUjr8r1bVQ
Is Thomas merely interpreting the law here? Be honest.
EPA:
The Supreme Court limited the ability of the EPA to fight climate change in a landmark ruling. But regulators still have many tools in their arsenal.
www.cnbc.com
What’s the point of the EPA then? If the American EPA can’t regulate the air in America, what’s the entire pt of this agency? LOL
Gun control:
The decision, based on a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, will make it harder for states and localities to restrict guns outside the home.
www.nytimes.com
Justice Thomas wrote that citizens may not be required to explain to the government why they sought to exercise a constitutional right.
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” he wrote.
This is literally a completely different take than 200+ years of Supreme Court justices have had.
www.ojp.gov
Psss Burger wasn’t a liberal…
en.wikipedia.org
In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. responded to the dissent.
“It is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section,” he wrote. “Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities?
Is Alito merely interpreting the law or waging his cultural and political grievances here?
Recent Historic Examples
It’s not just this most recent session that has made **** up. Check out the gutting of the VRA.
Voting Rights:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday gutted a core part of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act and challenged Congress to come up with a replacement plan to protect blacks and other minorities in places where discrimination still persists rather than target former slaveholding states in the South.
www.reuters.com
This might be the best case showing how the Supreme Court just makes **** up. Prior to this case, southern states with a history of discrimination had to clear with the DOJ changes to rules and regulations effecting elections. The whole point of this law was to proactively prevent states with histories of discrimination from discriminating against its black citizens. This is literally what MLK marched for. Like that’s the entire point of the damn legislation. So black people wouldn’t be ****ed out of voting and out of power come election time. And the court made **** up by saying:
But, writing for the court’s majority, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said that America is not the country that it was a half century ago when the Voting Rights Act was passed to end a century of attempts by former slaveholding states to block blacks from voting.
“Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” Roberts wrote.
Yep. As the last seven years have proven, racism and discrimination, especially in the south, is definitely dead…
Now, the DOJ has to prove that the new rules and laws have been discriminatory. And if the DOJ is headed by a Republican, why would they pursue cases against fellow republicans? Especially if the discrimination helps them stay in power?
Is this really what Kennedy and later LBJ and MLK had in mind when this law was advocated for and passed?
Campaign Finance:
The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations.
www.brennancenter.org
Yep. Money is free speech. Anyone from oligarchs in Russia to billionaires in Kansas can influence American politics disproportionately and secretly with their money. It’s exactly what common sense advocates for.
It’s fine to admit that you like the recent rulings without making it sound like they are more virtuous than before. You don’t need to put them on a pedestal just because you agree with them. They’re doing the same stuff that has been done before. It’s more extreme and out of sync with the majority of what Americans believe. But they’re doing what has been done before. Just admit that you agree with their politics.