It all stems from the supreme court’s decision to undo nearly 50 years of precedent. But it is also a powerful gauge of the growing gap between the people of the United States and their supreme court.
“Roe was gravely wrong from the outset. Its argument was particularly weak and the decision had disastrous consequences. And without bringing about a national solution to the abortion problem, Roe and Casey were quoted as saying. causing controversy and deepening divisions,” opinion statuses.
After: “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the abortion issue to the elected representatives of the people.”
And finally: “We end this opinion from where we started. Abortion raises a profound ethical question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each Country from regulating or banning abortion. Roe and Casey arrogance of that authority. Now, we have ignored those decisions and returned that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”
Let’s review Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing in 2017. Faced with questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gorsuch was asked by Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, if Trump had once asked him in an interview to oust Roe against Wade. After a pause, with all eyes on him, Gorsuch replied, “No…… I’ll walk out the door.” “That’s not what judges do,” Gorsuch said.
“Part of the value of precedent – and it has a lot of value, in itself, because it’s our history and our history is intrinsically valuable. But it also has value. a particular value in this sense: It augments the said judge.
“Once the case is resolved, that adds to the legitimacy of the law,” Gorsuch added. “What was once a hotly contested issue is no longer a hotly contested issue. We move forward.”
Then there’s Kavanaugh, who has time and again returned to the importance of precedent and the Supreme Court’s “precedent over precedent” in his 2018 confirmation battle.
“One of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood. lawsuit against Casey in 1992,” Kavanaugh said during his confirmation hearing, adding that the Casey decision analyzed “staring determinants” when explaining why the precedent was not overturned.
“It’s not a stub case that was decided and never revisited, but Casey specifically revisited it, applied the determinants and decided to reassert it,” Kavanaugh said. ,” Kavanaugh said. “That makes Casey a precedent.”
“My policy views, my moral beliefs, my religious beliefs do not affect how I decide cases, nor should they; it would conflict with my judicial oath. “, she said.
“The Court’s decision to appoint Roe and Casey is a serious shock to the legal system – no matter how you view those cases.” he wrote.
And after that: “I will decide the question we have allowed review to answer – whether the previously recognized abortion rights prevent all pre-existing abortion restrictions, such that the abortion ban pregnancy after fifteen weeks is necessarily against the law. The answer to that question is no, and there is no need to go further to decide this case.”
Simply put, Roberts insists that this is not an all-or-nothing case. He proposed a limited resolution during oral arguments last December, but never seemed to have any real momentum against the court’s conservative bloc.
There was no indication in the comments released on Friday that Alito participants wavered in the view that Roe was “seriously wrong”.
Roberts sought to “put aside another date with or without denying any right to an abortion.” Alito dismissed that possibility, stating that “the mid lane quest will only end the day we’re forced to face the question we decide now. The anarchy caused by Roe and Casey will continue. It’s much better – for this Court and for the country – to face the actual problem without further delay.”
The high court has overturned a New York gun law enacted more than a century ago that imposed restrictions on the carrying of concealed handguns outside the home – an opinion that marked the opening most extensive gun rights expansion in a decade.
“Because the State of New York only grants public transit permits when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution,” Thomas wrote to a majority of 6. -3 of the court.
Up for grabs is not just a public media law like New York’s rule in court. Virtually any other type of gun regulation, including age restrictions, restrictions on certain types of firearms, and limits on high-volume magazines, will now be considered by the courts from a different perspective. harsher.
About two-thirds of Americans (66%) say gun laws should be made stricter, up 14 points since last fall and the highest since 2018. That increase came from partisan , with 94% of Democrats currently supporting stricter legislation along with 66% of independents and 38% of Republicans.
That’s the highest level of support since 2001 among Democrats, according to Gallup, and it’s at or close to the highest levels for independents and Republicans.
A majority also said they would like new gun laws in addition to stricter enforcement of existing laws (55%), while 42% said they would just prefer to see stricter enforcement.
If you consider this when you read Thomas’s opinion – in which he argues that gun restrictions should be measured by national history, not by a state’s assertion of interest Urgent public safety – startling you about the distance between court and country, you’re not alone. But what, if any, remedies can help link the supreme court and the people it serves remains an open question.
“This is an isolated court that has lost all real sense of public opinion and the American way of life. Not acting as a check on tyranny, the court’s six justices are serving.” to appeal to a right-wing ideology,” Khanna said in a speech.
But remember, the Biden administration has reviewed the Supreme Court amendments, and it has brought little controversy.
CNN’s Jennifer Agiesta, Ariel Edwards-Levy and Joan Biskupic contributed to this report.