Justices lied at hearings

To the editor:

On June 24, the conservative justices of the Supreme Court winked, almost audibly telling the world that most of them had lied in their confirmation hearings as they collectively overturned 50 years of judicial rulings concerning a woman’s bodily autonomy.

In his majority opinion Justice Samuel Alito wrote “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak,” and in support of this opinion cited a 17th century English judge who believed women were witches and should be treated as property. And as we all know, legal scholars from the 20th century weren’t nearly as enlightened as judges who presided before America was a country.

In his own unwanted and superfluous agreeing opinion, Clarence Thomas wrote that next he hopes to get an opportunity to overrule same-sex marriage, the rights of married people to use contraception, and — fingers crossed — the Loving decision so he might finally be rid of his own white she-devil. Actually, he didn’t write that last part; just the first two, because he is utterly oblivious to his own hypocrisy.

The day before the abortion decision, wherein they ruled that only states have the right to decide which raped children should have to bear their uncle’s baby, the justices ruled that states have no right to decide which crazed murderers should have to take a firearms safety course. Apparently the Second Amendment (which you’ll note — was an amendment) is fully-formed unassailable writ — which the Founders included in our holiest document as an afterthought (because again — it’s an amendment.)

Both of these decisions are unpopular with a majority of Americans. I know you haven’t read that in these pages before because in its article examining reactions to the opinion, the Herald-Star asked a bunch of old, white, celibate men to weigh in as well as a so-called “pregnancy crisis center” which (spoiler alert) has an anti-choice agenda. Nonetheless, survey after survey has shown that most Americans supported Roe and favor more gun restrictions.

The White House and both Congressional chambers are considering legislative action, but I think what’s needed is a Constitutional Amendment. Just one. It should be simple and unambiguous. It would grant each state the right to determine for itself what gun laws it needs. It would not supplant or repeal the Second Amendment. Citizens would maintain the right to keep and bear arms, but each state would determine what training they need, what licensing, what capacity weapon to make available, etc. This would be something SCOTUS could not undo. It would be holy writ. It would be the Constitution.

Afterward, if your state says you can’t have a gun you want, simply vote to get new representatives. This’ll mean convincing your neighbors to turn out and vote with you. It will mean constantly proving your argument and fighting against entrenched politicians with huge war chests of money. Or maybe you could just go to a different state where that gun is legal — if you can afford the trip.

J. David Core



Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *


Starting at $4.73/week.

Subscribe Today