Helmsman! You are off course!
Well now, let’s see what the Constitution says shall we? Ah yes – here we are – Article 2, section 1:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” (Emphasis mine.)
Helpful. But I must admit I’m a bit confused, I must have missed that ruling.
You’re off course Mr. Sulu! Steer a few points to starboard mister! But seriously George, if decisions by the Supreme Court to put legislative matters back into the hands of the legislature have you questioning what our country’s birthday is all about, I’m wondering what you think this country is all about.
It’s true that Republicans have had a strategy for decades of putting conservatives on the court. But the goal was for the court to act to “enact an agenda” which puts these “unpopular” matters in the hands of Congress, which it has done. I would think Mr. Murphy would be overjoyed. No?
If I understand correctly, many of our friends on the left seem to interpret the court releasing control as the court imposing a control. I must admit, I find that a bit hard to follow.
In Dobbs, the court excused itself and bowed out of the matter of abortion. It imposed no controls, it released control. Control goes to the legislature.
In the EPA case, the court simply ruled that the executive branch can only enforce laws passed by Congress, not “laws” made up from whole cloth by the executive branch. Control goes to the legislature.
In the NY carry permit case, the court simply ruled that everyone is entitled to equal protections under the Constitution. You can’t restrict rights based on whether or not you can prove you need to exercise that right to the government. This imposes no control over any legislative body provided any proposed legislation does not violate the Constitution and is applied equally. There is nothing novel about this approach to evaluating the legality of a law – in fact it follows the design and intent of our system precisely.
But the list of “rights” now “under threat” according to the left is large and growing.
- Access to contraception
- Interracial marriage
- Gay marriage
At the risk of pointing out the obvious (as the court recently did), none of these are mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution does not ban or protect any of them – the Constitution is simply silent.
Perhaps we should consider it a bad idea to attempt to pass laws via the judicial branch. Masterpiece Cake Shop for example. The owner was targeted by activists and attacked. He did no one any harm. The intent of the activists was clear – they wanted the court to create a law out of thin air, a law they felt they could not get through the legislature. Roe was the same. Obama’s CO2 “rules” were another case of creating a “law” absent the legislature.
When I was young, whenever I complained about a law I thought silly, the advice I got from my elders was “Write your congressman.”
Seems like good advice today.