Budapest Post

Cum Deo pro Patria et Libertate
Budapest, Europe and world news

The US supreme court is turning the constitution into a suicide pact

The US supreme court is turning the constitution into a suicide pact

The constitution is being used to destroy the very democratic governance that it was designed to protect
To paraphrase the great US supreme court justice Robert H Jackson, the US constitution should not be read as a suicide pact. That seemingly obvious bit of wisdom appears lost on the present court. Over the course of the past week, the court handed down three landmark decisions, each disastrous in its own right. But taken together they reveal a dangerously hidebound court intent on turning the constitution into an instrument of obstruction, a formidable obstacle to solving some of the nation’s most pressing problems.

First, in New York State Rifle v Bruen, the court, by a 6-3 vote, struck down a New York law that required a person demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a concealed handgun. The Sullivan law had been on the books for over a century without running afoul of the constitution. Indeed, between 1791 and 2008, the supreme court had never struck down a government gun regulation, presumably because as Warren Burger, the conservative chief justice appointed by Richard Nixon once observed, the idea that the second amendment creates a personal right to gun ownership is “one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word ‘fraud’ – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime”.

In 2008 in its Heller decision, a 5-4 majority of the supreme court elevated this fraud into constitutional doctrine. Now, writing to strike down New York’s Sullivan law, Justice Thomas insisted that the individual right to gun ownership deserves the same robust protection against government regulation that the constitution accords to freedom of speech, a bizarre and radical conclusion that taken on its face would call into question the constitutionality of state licensing requirements. (Alert to the dangers of Thomas’s wild position, Justice Kavanaugh penned a concurrence seeking to assure that the court’s decision “does not prohibit” such licensing requirements.)

Justice Breyer’s dissenting observation that in 2020, “45,222 Americans were killed by firearms”, elicited a characteristically thin-skinned response from Justice Alito, who appeared insulted that his colleague thought it “relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years”. For Alito, the court’s ruling will only serve to protect “many people” who “face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes”. That the court’s ruling will severely burden the efforts of states to address the epidemic of gun violence – that is a fact that the court either ignores or accepts as the consequence of protecting a fundamental constitutional right.

But what the court giveth, the court also taketh away. A day after its emphatic defense of a right never recognized in over 200 years of constitutional jurisprudence, the court brazenly eliminated a constitutional right that had stood for half a century. In its decision in Dobbs v Women’s Health, overturning Roe v Wade, the court demonstrated how inaptly the label “conservative” applies to the present six-person majority. There is nothing conservative about a court willing to upset established precedent and to radically purge the constitution of a right that had been recognized and affirmed by numerous justices over the course of decades.

Roe, for whatever its weaknesses, recognized that while states have an interest in protecting unborn life, women have a right to “bodily integrity” and “personal autonomy in matters of family” that includes the right to terminate a pregnancy. Roe demanded a delicate act of balancing the state’s interest against a woman’s right, a balance that the court has now eliminated. Against the interest of the state, the court now declares that there is nothing else to weigh, except, perhaps, a woman’s right not to remain pregnant in risk to her own life. How a woman deals with an unwanted pregnancy is no longer an issue of personal choice; it is a matter of state control.

Those who defend the Dobbs decision as simply returning the abortion issue to the democratic process (the same democratic process that cannot be trusted when it comes to matters of gun control), overlook the fact that the court has simply eliminated the kind of balancing act often demanded of our most sensitive social problems. So while Justices Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor in dissent note that “experts estimate that a ban on abortions increases maternal mortality by 21%, with white women facing a 13% increase in maternal mortality while black women face a 33% increase” Justice Alito’s majority opinion simply ignores such facts as “extraneous” to the solemn task of constitutional interpretation.

Some may find cold comfort in Alito’s and Kavanaugh’s assurance that Dobbs leaves intact the court’s earlier landmark decisions based on unenumerated constitutional rights, but then we read Justice Thomas’s concurrence, which blithely declares decisions such as Lawrence v Texas, which struck down a statute criminalizing consensual gay sex, “demonstrably erroneous”. In his crusade to turn the constitution into a blunt weapon of reaction, Thomas would eliminate the right of privacy altogether – which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that a state law that required abortions would be perfectly constitutional.

Finally, in West Virginia v EPA, the same six-person majority held that in passing the Clean Air Act, Congress never granted the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to aggressively regulate the energy industry. While the text of the Clean Air Act authorizes the agency to implement the “best system of emission reduction”, the court concluded that when it comes to “major questions” of “economic and political significance”, Congress must “speak with particular clarity” in authorizing bold regulatory action. In this case, Congress had not so spoken.

Never mind that the court invented the “major questions” doctrine out of whole cloth. And never mind that Congress has more than sufficient means for reining in a wayward agency, by, if need be, amending the authorizing statute. What is alarming about the court’s holding is that in the name of protecting the democratic process – that is, by checking the power of administrative agencies and returning authorizing power to the people’s representatives – the court has, in fact, usurped the role of determining when an agency has gone too far.

Congress broadly delegates regulatory power precisely because it lacks the institutional expertise to implement granular and effective policy, and now the court, with even less institutional expertise, installs itself as the last say on the delegated powers of agencies. Most catastrophically, the court’s decision limits the power of the executive branch to address the climate crisis, handing the matter back to a dysfunctional Congress stocked with partisans who continue to deny the very existence of the problem – the “greatest environmental challenge of our time”, as Justice Kagan rightly notes in her dissent. Here it is relevant to note that in her confirmation hearing, Amy Coney Barrett agreed that cigarettes cause cancer, that Covid is infectious, but demurred when asked about climate crisis, preferring to sidestep a “politically controversial” issue. If less shocking that than Dobbs’s elimination of a long-recognized constitutional right, the court’s EPA decision may prove in the long run even more calamitous.

If all this were not bad enough, the court ended its present term by announcing that it had agreed to hear Moore v Harper in the fall. It is widely feared that the case, which involves a North Carolina redistricting plan, will provide the court’s reactionary core the opportunity to adopt the so-called “independent state legislature theory”, a previously fringe notion that the constitution gives state legislatures plenary control over elections, free from the oversight of state courts and regardless of contrary provisions in state constitutions. Adopting this dangerous theory could, for example, give legislators spouting the big lie in swing states the power to determine the outcome of a presidential election. Whatever theory we use to interpret the constitution, it should not result in the destruction of the very form of democratic governance the constitution was designed to protect.
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
Newsletter

Related Articles

0:00
0:00
Close
Street justice isn’t pretty but how else do you deal with this kind of insanity? Sometimes someone needs to standup and say something
Armenia and Azerbaijan sign U.S.-brokered accord at White House outlining transit link via southern Armenia
Barcelona Resolves Captaincy Issue with Marc-André ter Stegen
US Justice Department Seeks Release of Epstein and Maxwell Grand Jury Exhibits Amid Legal and Victim Challenges
Spain Scraps F-35 Jet Deal as Trump Pushes for More NATO Spending
France Faces Largest Wildfire Since 1949 as Blazes Rage Across Aude
French Senate Report Alleges State Cover‑Up in Perrier ‘Natural Mineral Water’ Scandal
British Labour Government Utilizes Counter-Terrorism Tools for Social Media Monitoring Against Legitimate Critics
OpenAI Launches GPT‑5, Its Most Advanced AI Model Yet
Brazilian President Lula says he’ll contact the leaders of BRICS states to propose a unified response to U.S. tariffs
US envoy Steve Witkoff arrived in Moscow to seek a breakthrough in the Ukraine war ahead of President Trump’s peace deadline
WhatsApp Deletes 6.8 Million Scam Accounts Amid Rising Global Fraud
Britain's Online Safety Law Sparks Outcry Over Privacy, Free Speech, and Mass Surveillance
Nine people have been hospitalized and dozens of salmonella cases have been reported after an outbreak of infections linked to certain brands of pistachios and pistachio-containing products, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada
Karol Nawrocki Inaugurated as Poland’s President, Setting Stage for Clash with Tusk Government
US Charges Two Chinese Nationals for Illegal Nvidia AI Chip Exports
Texas Residents Face Water Restrictions While AI Data Centers Consume Millions of Gallons
U.S. Tariff Policy Triggers Market Volatility Amid Growing Global Trade Tensions
Tariffs, AI, and the Shifting U.S. Macro Landscape: Navigating a New Economic Regime
German Finance Minister Criticizes Trump’s Attacks on Institutions
India Rejects U.S. Tariff Threat, Defends Russian Oil Purchases
United States Establishes Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and Digital Asset Stockpile
Thousands of Private ChatGPT Conversations Accidentally Indexed by Google
China Tightens Mineral Controls, Curtailing Critical Inputs for Western Defence Contractors
OpenAI’s Bold Bet: Teaching AI to Think, Not Just Chat
U.S. Tariffs Surge to Highest Levels in Nearly a Century Under Second Trump Term
Ong Beng Seng Pleads Guilty in Corruption Case Linked to Former Singapore Transport Minister
BP’s Largest Oil and Gas Find in 25 Years Uncovered Offshore Brazil
Italy Fines Shein One Million Euros for Misleading Sustainability Claims
JPMorgan and Coinbase Unveil Partnership to Let Chase Cardholders Buy Crypto Directly
Declassified Annex Links Soros‑Affiliated Officials and Clinton Campaign to ‘Russiagate’ Narrative
UK's Online Safety Law: A Front for Censorship
Parents Abandon Child at Barcelona Airport Over Passport Issue
Bus Driver Discovers Toddler Hidden in Suitcase in New Zealand
Switzerland Celebrates 734 Years of Independence Amid Global Changes
China Enforces Comprehensive Ban on Cryptocurrency Activities
Grok 4 Video plus Voice, can identify wildlife!
George Soros tells the World Economic Forum: "President Trump is a con man and the ultimate narcissist, who wants the world to revolve around him."
Hamas are STARVING the hostages.
The UK Does Not Have a ‘Far-Right’ Problem
British Tourist Dies Following Hair Transplant in Turkey, Police Investigate
WhatsApp Users Targeted in New Scam Involving Account Takeovers
JD Vance Warns Europe Faces “Civilizational Suicide” Over Open Borders and Speech Limits
Germany Enters Fiscal Crisis as Cabinet Approves €174 Billion in New Debt
Trump Administration Finalizes Broad Tariff Increases on Global Trade Partners
JD.com Launches €2.2 Billion Bid for German Electronics Retailer Ceconomy
Azerbaijan Proceeds with Plan to Legalise Casinos on Artificial Islands
IMF Upgrades Global Growth Forecast as Weaker Dollar Supports Outlook
House Republicans Move to Defund OECD Over Global Tax Dispute
France Opens Criminal Investigation into X Over Algorithm Manipulation Allegations
×