The recent SCOTUS rulings could, or should, maybe teach us one thing. The Justices aren’t concerned with public opinion or consequences of their rulings. They are, self-proclaimed, ‘Originalists’ and are therefore simply calling strikes and balls. Is it in the Constitution or not? If not explicitly in the Constitution, or in Federal legislation, then it’s out.
It is really simple; just like the baseball umpire calls inside or outside the strike zone. The umpire doesn’t pause to consider consequences of the call. Is a full count and the pick is a ball with runner advancing; are the bases loaded? Is the home team ahead or behind with bases loaded? How many outs in the inning? Will a strike call end the inning or the game? Will the fans agree with the call, or get irate?
Nope, doesn’t happen. The umpire calls it without consideration of the unending scenarios which might play out. And so it is with the SCOTUS, or so it seems. It also appears historic precedent is immaterial. And common practice and national acceptance isn’t going to be considered. It’s simple; in the Constitution or not; make the call. Protected by explicit federal law, yes or no; make the call.
Are the ‘rights’ you think you have protected explicitly in the Constitution or Federal statutes; or are they inferred by implication and interpretations? If not explicitly or by statute, they may not be your ‘rights’ for long. So, ponder for a moment; marriage isn’t in the Constitution. Not just same sex, or interracial, just simply marriage. The right to ‘own’ a firearm isn’t explicitly protected. The right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ is; but not ‘own’. Maybe the Founders considered a ‘regulated militia’ as citizens to whom the government issued weapons. Not for their ownership but for them to keep and be prepared to use. If the government has the authority to distribute, they also have the inverse, of collection and control. Oh, and just for fun, those ‘Arms’ aren’t defined. So, is it the ‘Arms’ of the day or ‘Arms’ of today? What else is out there, the right to medical care, nope; the right to own a home, nope; voting rights, well maybe sorta; but the list will likely just keep growing.
The ‘interpretist’ of SCOTUS past have been displaced. Ok, new umpires, new rules. Defining and protecting historic rights is now, as it should be, the obligation of the state and federal legislators. In this world of robust gerrymandering, visceral rancor, and open violence it doesn’t seem likely there will be any compromises coming anytime soon. The irony is all this could have been avoided if federal legislators had codified all this over the last fifty years.
Remember, SCOTUS is not obliged to consider consequences, even if they should. However, the further SCOTUS veers away from public opinion the more they lose credibility, not authority unfortunately, just credibility. Consequences and public policy are the roles of legislators, not judges. It’s just strikes and balls. #NeverFeartheDream
simplebender 