Why I Believe the Supreme Court Ruled Incorrectly
Yesterday, the Supreme Court acted on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in a decision that overruled the court’s previous ruling on Roe v. Wade. For context, Dobbs v. Jackson…was a case on a Mississippi state law that banned abortion operations after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. My understanding of this decision is that the Court views its original decision of Roe v. Wade to be inaccurate in its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. I believe this sentence of section 1 covers it. “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Simply put, the Roe v. Wade decision said that because the state can not create laws that prevent citizens from making healthcare decisions for themselves as that would be a violation of their liberty. Therefore, abortion laws are illegal. The Court now views this as inaccurate because “the Constituion makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicty protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which defenders of Row and Case now chiefly rely – the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”.
I disagree with the Court’s decision on the basis that the Court has ruled in the past, as early as this week, with the understanding that the Constitution must be interpreted to match modern day understanding. In the ruling syllabus, Section 2 states
“Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced, but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field.“
I would argue that the Court used a modern day interpretation of the second amendment, and therefore passed the buck given “lack of expertise in the field” in their ruling of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. To reiterate, the Second Amendment reads as follows,
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Court used a very liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment regarding the individual carry of firearms. I would argue that individual carry most certainly does not meet the criteria of “a well regulated militia”. The constitution does not guarantee the right to individual firearm public carry.
The Consitution also does not guarantee the right to an abortion, specifically. However, the Fourteenth Amendment does guarantee that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to the freedom that the state shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
In just one week we have a ruling that views an amendment very openly, and another that denies a previous granted right because of Constitution originalism. I find this use of the Court and the Constitution to be disgraceful.
Trust in institutions is key to a functioning democracy. I would argue that trust in leadership of any organization, whether that organization is a family, a sports team, or a government, to be key to its success. Yesterday, the Supreme Court showed the United States citizens that they have little reason to expect consistency in their interpretation of the founding documents they allegedly hold so close. These justices are ruling not on law but on personal emotions related to the cases presented. The Constitutional Oath reads, in part, “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;”. The justices who ruled yesterday failed to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution.