No respect for rule of law

Vincent J. Curtis

24 June 22.

RE: U.S. Supreme Court expands gun rights, with nation divided.  AP story published in the Hamilton Spectator 24 June 22

Respect for the rule of law in the U.S. is at a low ebb.  Everything is political.  Even authoritative and obvious decisions of what the law is by the U.S. Supreme Court are deemed political.  Politics poisons whatever it touches.

The very headline screams disrespect for law.  The decision didn’t ‘expand’ rights, it declared what those rights legally are, and struck down illegal restrictions upon those rights.  Statements by political figures condemning the decision are outrageous.  Joe Biden opined that he was “deeply disappointed” and that it “contradicted both common sense and the constitution.”  (This is the US Supreme Court were talking about!  Their decisions on the constitution have been deemed authoritative since Marbury

Biden’s job is to see that the laws are faithfully executed, and the Court’s job is to say what the law is.  The decision followed the baldly stated “shall not be infringed” and the New York law plainly infringed upon the individual, constitutional right to bear arms for self-protection.  One is left wondering why Biden hasn’t been impeached yet, not just for failing in his own constitutional duties that the laws be faithfully executed, but for sheer senility.

New York State governor Kathy Hochul called the decision “reprehensible,” saying the state was never trying to restrict people’s rights, just trying to protect people.  Only in political science can someone that incoherent escape university with a degree in hand.  Rather than attack the Court, Hochul ought to have said something about changing the constitution so that such laws do pass muster.  But no.  It utterly escapes her that bearing arms for the purpose of personal protection meets the aim of “protecting people” more clearly and directly than disarming the law abiding leaving only the criminals with guns.  Hochul might as well rail against the law of gravity and demand that it be repealed for being reprehensible and shocking in its scale.

Even the minority dissent tacitly admitted the law was unconstitutional.  The dissent didn’t argue that the law was constitutional, it argued the consequences if the law was struck down.  That’s not a legal argument, but a political one.

Justice Scalia used to say that it wasn’t the job of the court to make law, it was to declare what it is.  If you want gun control, repeal the Second Amendment.  Respect for the law means changing it to suit, not condemning judges for correctly stating the obvious.

-30-