My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:
It was a blockbuster week of rulings from the Supreme Court of the Unites States. With a few more important rulings to be released this week, we see a positive trend emerging from the rulings. SCOTUS is stripping back the power of government and returning it to the people.
[…]
While the court did confirm that aborting a baby is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it did not say that the Constitution protects someone from being aborted. The Constitution does protect citizens from being deprived of life without due process, but to make such a ruling, the court would have had to define when life begins. That was not the question before the court and to rule on that issue would have been an act of judicial overreach. Perhaps a future court will have the opportunity to consider that question.
In both cases, we see the court reducing the power of government. In the case of Bruen, the court checked any government from restricting the 2nd Amendment without the same kind of extraordinary justifications we require of government to restrict other rights enumerated in the Constitution. This will have a cooling effect on zealous gun grabbers.
In the case of Dobbs, the court returned the power to regulate abortion to the people to exercise through their elected representatives. While the federal legislature could take up the issue, reaching a consensus across the broad ideological spectrum represented in the national legislature would be difficult. The state legislatures will more practically take up the arduous task of regulating such a politically contentious issue. Since the government closest to you generally governs the best (a reliable, if not unfailing, truism), the court’s ruling has empowered the people.
Here’s to SCOTUS getting West Virginia vs EPA right as well. It would be a huge boost to stopping these faceless agencies and bueracratic cesspools from making rules and laws that affect the entire country.
Been waiting for years for this type of ruling, and am glad to see that concept being clearly spelled out by the Court. Can’t think of any other protected right that one can lose so easily…often with a “rubber stamp” type of law…which is absolutely absurd.
Next up we need to remove lifetime bans on firearm ownership/possession. If a felon can still attend church or post on a blog after being released from their sentence then they should be allowed to bear arms as well. If one truly beleives that person is considered too dangerous to have a gun, then that person should be considered too dangerous to be out of prison.
And I hope people keep this sentiment in mind when voting laws are being discussed…
Celebrate these newly won battles, but war with The Left is far from over. Lefty compliance with court decisions is not a given, particularly in geographic areas where they can wield total prosecutorial discretion as an informal method of secession. They’re going to spend the next decade clogging the courts pushing the envelope on all those extraordinary justifications. They’re not going to roll over on any of this.
Penguin actually brings up an interesting discussion. We have decided as a society that the punishment for violating our societal rules, as codified in laws, is the depravation of your civil rights. Those rights range from the depravation of property (money), movement (jail), and even life (death sentence). The purpose of that depravation is two-fold: punishment and to protect the rest of society. These two purposes have different considerations.
In terms of protecting society, the perpetual loss of the right to keep and bear arms may be appropriate if someone has demonstrated that they are a pervasive and ongoing threat even if we have determined that they can be released into society. It is difficult to justify the continued denial of voting or other rights under the justification of protecting society.
In terms of punishment, perpetually depriving someone of their right to vote, keep and bear arms, or other rights could be justified. It isn’t about protecting society anymore. It’s about punishing someone for doing something so egregious that the punishment should be equally severe.
When it comes to voting, I think Wisconsin has it about right. Once a felon is done with imprisonment and supervision, they regain their right to vote. Except for a small minority of crimes (murder, rape, violent assault, etc.), I would support the same standard for firearm possession.
Those statements seem contradictory. Why would any reasonable person determine that someone who is an ongoing threat should still be released back to society?
>Those statements seem contradictory. Why would any reasonable person determine that someone who is an ongoing threat should still be released back to society?
Why do some people think that a murderer should get 15-20, some think life, but okay to parole in 10 years, some life and throw away the key and still others believe the electric chair? It is not really a very reasonable subject if the length and degree of penalty is the measuring stick.
It is still a fact in this country that since the FBI started keeping records on homicides it is historical record that over 50% of homicides every year are committed by repeat murderers. So though I also thought your original opinion was insightful, I agree with Owen that people who have used a gun in the past for crimes can reasonably be denied use of a gun in the future.
Heck, libs want to limit guns to everyone, people who commit gun crimes seem a logical lesser limit to me.
Of course, I am all for a third (or some number) drunk driving conviction on a person should lose driving privileges forever. I recognize the difference between a privilege and a right, but think it is more when things were invented, so I still think it is a good example. If cars were around during the constitutional convention, it may well have been an inalienable right. And if guns had not been invented, I don’t know that an amendment is ever added for them.
Certainly doesn’t look like there will be a consensus on what’s ‘reasonable’ anytime soon. About anything.
Yeah ‘reasonable’ and ‘US Government’ seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum.
>Certainly doesn’t look like there will be a consensus on what’s ‘reasonable’ anytime soon. About anything.
>Yeah ‘reasonable’ and ‘US Government’ seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum.
One has only to look at the sham theater hearings happening right now led by assholes like Schiff. Who in their right minds would take the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson into any type of consideration when the agents with the President that day a willing to testify under oath that what she has stated did not happen. There’s a reason why courtrooms do not allow hearsay… and yet the Media, and nationwide the D’s are just eating it up, being the unreasonable haters they are.
>Here’s to SCOTUS getting West Virginia vs EPA right as well. It would be a huge boost to stopping these faceless agencies and bueracratic cesspools from making rules and laws that affect the entire country.
Here’s a win, the court is on a roll! I even agree with their reasoning on the “Remain in Mexico” ruling. Follow the laws and the procedures to change / add new laws… do not allow one party, person, organization to unilaterally change, remove, add new.
I love how liberal elected officials call SCOTUS taking control away from appointed agencies and putting responsibility back on them, the elected, somehow means the court is destroying America. It really says quite a bit about them doesn’t it?
T, Congress NEVER wants actual responsibility. That’s why they do everything possible to shove it off to agencies. Being responsible means they might not get re-elected.
And it also requires convictions. They don’t have them, either.
Amen to that…
Too bad news is no longer allowed to just give objective opinions. There might even be some actual collaboration between parties if they could just rely on their voting records for re-election, other than the occasional single cross the aisle vote.