While the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has come under increasing scrutiny — and has won growing opposition and distrust — due to a series of recent rulings, the July 4th riots in Highland Park, Illinois, The mass shootings should be regrettable but hopefully brought to the fore to question not just any of these specific rulings, but their attitude and approach to the Constitution itself.
The concern I want to raise is for the Supreme Court to take a more general and thorough approach to the law and the Constitution itself—reading it, interpreting it, and most importantly, understanding how it relates to serving American lives.
The approach I’m talking about is both dishonest and disturbingly anti-intellectual — in addition to being absolutely deadly to Americans, as the shooting in Highland Park on the 4th of July showed, this It shows SCOTUS’ supreme disregard for American life.
To explain this, let’s start with Judge Samuel Alito’s attack on Judge Stephen Breyer’s dissent to New York’s concealed carry gun laws in a recent court ruling in which Clarence Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion makes it harder to regulate gun ownership going forward, according to Justice Stephen Breyer.
Alito expressed indignation at the consent he wrote in support of Thomas’ majority opinion, accusing Breyer of writing and arguing beyond the scope of the case in reference to the prevalence of gun violence and killings in the United States.
“Many dissents appear to be designed to obscure the specific issues the court has decided,“He wrotecontinued, “That’s all we decide. Our controlling stake does not determine who can legally own a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a firearm.”
He denounced Breyer’s dissent, writing “It’s hard to see what legitimate purpose the lengthy introductory portion of most objections can serve.”
Most pointedly, he asked, “Why, for example, do dissidents think the narrative of mass shootings in recent years is relevant?”
Breyer’s first line is Reference Facts In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms.
But somehow, in Alito’s view, the fact that it links the largely unregulated spread of gun ownership to tens of thousands of murders isn’t relevant? ! ?
I guess the laws that God forbid us to make actually respond to the problems of the world we live in!
As Jesus reminded the Pharisees in the Gospel of Mark, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
That is, the law should serve the interests of human life, those who live in the social world defined by our legal system.
Of course, Thomas’ majority opinion in this particular case and Alito’s in his overturned decision Roe v Wade Both rely on the principle of absolute invention that, for a law to be effective, it must be rooted in the history and traditions of the nation, which means that, as far as is known, there is no legal precedent dating back to before the mid-10th century. In the ninth century, then, we simply cannot create new laws.
Of course, the 4th of July homicide underscores how deeply gun violence and murder are rooted in our nation’s history and heritage.
Instead of assessing our history and rethinking traditions that are unhealthy and even deadly for us, SCOTUS, led by the illogical minds of Alito and Thomas, uses it to validate laws and decisions that are harmful—lethal—for Americans.
In their view, when we make laws to regulate and support human life, we do not take into account the conditions of contemporary reality.
They refuse to focus on how gun violence and the ease with which Americans can attack weapons put American lives at risk.
However, Alito attacked against his overthrow Roe v Wade, writing, “The most striking feature of the dissent is the lack of serious discussion of the legality of states to protect the interests of fetal life.”
I’m pretty sure the right to potential life is not discussed in the constitution.
Yet these justices ignore the realities of American life today.
They’re trying to create a reality — or ignore it — as the basis for their decision, reminiscent of Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2013 decision to repeal the Voting Rights Act. He plays the role of amateur sociologist and professional denial of reality, basically insisting that racism is no longer a problem in America, so since the conditions of racism that made the Voting Rights Act necessary do not exist, the conditions of the Act do not exist. exists. It doesn’t need to exist either.
Of course, Roberts’ ruling prompted the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to liken the decision to a decision to throw away an umbrella in a rainstorm because it didn’t get wet.
Like Roberts, Alito and Thomas ignore reality and, worse, conceptualize legislation, as we see in Alito’s swipe at Breyer, as an act of detachment from the concrete reality of life.
Not representing nor creating legal services for those living in our contemporary reality is not just a big issue, it is a form of aiding and abetting murder.
Tim Libretti is a professor of American literature and culture at a state university in Chicago. A longtime progressive voice, he has published numerous scholarly and news articles on culture, class, race, gender and politics, for which he has received awards from the Association for the Study of the Working Class, the International Association of Labour Bulletins, the National Federation of Trade Unions for Women in Journalism and the Illinois Women’s Press Association.