Imagine if only a select few who were out of the mainstream were allowed to vote, or to speak freely, or be allowed to have a trial by jury? And yet, the same rules do not apply to the second amendment. The case should have been open-and-shut, and yet Mr. Peruta was denied his permit because he wasn't special enough.
The decision was appealed, and the case went to the 9th circuit Federal Court, where it was ruled (correctly) that California's "good cause" requirement did, in fact, violate Mr. Peruta's second amendment rights. However, that wasn't good enough for California liberals. The case was re-heard en banc and the 9th circuit court reversed its own decision, based on the reasoning that at least some people were granted permits. Can you imagine a court saying "well, some people get to vote, so we can deny you your right to vote."
Well, the case finally made its way to the Supreme Court, which for months put off making any decision on it, but recently decided not to hear the case, which means the lower court decision holds, and Mr. Peruta (and other Californians) are denied their rights.
Oddly enough, people on both sides of the issue are happy. Notably, the pro-gun people are saying "well, at least they didn't set precedent because they didn't hear the case." The logic is that we should wait until we know we have the "votes" on the Supreme Court to get it passed the right way.
Here's the problem with that logic. The job of the Supreme Court is not to "vote" on issues and we should wait until we have appointees who will "vote" the right way. The job of the Supreme Court is to look at a case and see if it violates what the Constitution says. And, to quote the late Anton Scalia, the Constitution says what it says!
If the Constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms, then that's the decision you make. If the Constitution says you have to bake a cake then that's the decision you make. The job isn't supposed to be one of "what the justices want" but "what the Constitution says." And if a justice doesn't like what the Constitution says, too bad. That's why we have a legislative branch - to do what the people who elect them want them to do. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on that power, not a pawn to whichever party appointed them. They are unelected and are not supposed to represent themselves or their party or anything - they are supposed to just follow what' on the paper.
Case in point - slavery. It was not the job of the Supreme Court justices to overturn all slavery laws because they decided to reinterpret the Constitution in favor of abolition - it took Congress to pass an amendment. Likewise Prohibition, and the repeal of Prohibition, and women's votes, and income tax... you get the picture?
If you want to do something that's outside what the Constitution says, you make a law. If the law is deemed unconstitutional, you either change the law or change the constitution. You don't lobby for "votes" on the Supreme Court. If you go down that path, then the country is no longer a democratic republic, but an oligarchy.
But that's the path we're happily running down. From abortion to gay marriage to religious liberty to self defense, we are accepting the "rights" of the Supreme Court to decide what they want rather than what the Constitution says. And when we talk about Scalia (and Gorsuch) who hold the opinion that the Constitution says what it says, they are labeled "extreme" and Democrats try to block their appointment because of their "conservative views." News flash - if you appoint a court that reinterprets the Constitution, you are just a couple of appointments away from having everything you worked for reversed. The way to change laws is supposed to be through the legislature, not the courts.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment