While the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has come under increasing scrutiny — and growing disapproval and suspicion — from a plethora of recent rulings, the July 4th mass shooting in Highland Park, Illinois was sadly but hopefully about to convene will not question any of these specific decisions, but their approach and method towards constitutional law itself.
The concern I want to express is about a more general and thorough approach by the Supreme Court to the law and the Constitution itself – to reading, interpreting, and most importantly understanding its relationship to the service of American lives.
The approach I speak of is a malevolent and disarmingly anti-intellectual approach – in addition to being deadly deadly to Americans, as the July 4th Highland Park shooting illustrates and demonstrates SCOTUS’ utter disregard for the lives of Americans .
To explain this point, we begin with Judge Samuel Alito’s attack on Judge Stephen Breyer’s objection in the court’s recent ruling repealing the New York Concealed Carrying Arms Act, in which Judge Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion found it much more difficult went on to regulate the possession of firearms, according to Judge Stephen Breyer.
Alito expressed outrage at the affirmation, which he wrote to support Thomas’ majority opinion, and accused Breyer of writing and arguing beyond the scope of the case by referring to the epidemic of gun violence and killing in America.
“Much of the disagreement appears designed to obscure the specific issue the court decided,” he wrote, continuing, “That’s all we decide.” Our holding company does not decide who can legally own a firearm or what requirements must be met in order to purchase a firearm.”
He was critical of Breyer’s dissent, writing, “It is hard to see what legitimate purpose most of the long introductory section of the dissent can serve.”
Most bluntly, he asks: “Why, for example, does the dissent consider it relevant to narrate the mass shootings that have taken place in recent years?”
Breyer’s first line refers to the fact that 45,222 Americans were killed by guns in 2020.
But somehow this fact, which links the largely unregulated proliferation of gun ownership to tens of thousands of murders, isn’t relevant in Alito’s eyes?!?
God forbid I think the laws we make actually address the problems of the world we live in!
As Jesus reminded the Pharisees in Mark, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
That is, laws are meant to work for the benefit of human life, for those who live in the social world that our legal system regulates.
Of course, overturning Thomas in his majority opinion in this particular case and Alito in his decision Roe v. calf both relied on the utterly made-up principle that in order for a law to be valid, it must be rooted in the nation’s history and traditions, which means, as far as one can tell, there is no legal precedent that precedes the middle goes back -19. Century, well, then we just can’t create a new law.
The murderous shooting of July 4th, of course, underscores just how ingrained gun violence and, well, murder, are in our country’s history and tradition.
Instead of evaluating our history and rethinking traditions that are unhealthy, even deadly, for us, SCOTUS, led by the illogical minds of Alito and Thomas, uses tradition to validate laws and decisions that are harmful to – deadly to – are Americans.
In their view, when we legislate to regulate and support human life, we do not look to the conditions of current reality.
They refuse to look at how gun violence and Americans’ easy access to attacking guns endanger American lives.
And yet Alito attacked the judges who deviated from his fall Roe v. calfand wrote: “The most striking feature of the contradiction is the lack of a serious discussion of the legitimacy of states’ interest in the protection of fetal life.”
I’m pretty sure the rights of potential life aren’t discussed in the Constitution.
Yet these judges overlook the reality of life in America now.
Their attempt to invent a reality to base their decisions on — or to ignore reality — is reminiscent of Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2013 decision to scrap the Voting Rights Act. He played the amateur sociologist and professional denier of reality by essentially insisting that racism was no longer an issue in the United States, so that since the terms of racism that necessitated the Voting Rights Act did not exist, the terms of the law did not exist. doesn’t have to exist either.
Roberts’ ruling, of course, prompted the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to liken the decision to throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you don’t get wet.
Alito and Thomas, like Roberts, ignore reality, and even worse, they conceptualize legislation, as we see in Alito’s beatings on Breyer, as an act separate from the concrete reality in which they live.
Not representing and inventing laws to serve those who live in our contemporary reality is not only a major problem, but a form of complicity in murder.
Tim Libretti is Professor of American Literature and Culture at Chicago State University. A longtime progressive voice, he has published many scholarly and journalistic articles on culture, class, race, gender and politics, for which he has received awards from the Working Class Studies Association, the International Labor Communications Association, the National Federation of Press Women and the Illinois Woman’s Press association.