Skip to main contentSkip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Edit
editor's pick

LETTER: Looking for consistency from court

  • 0
Letter to the Editor

The Supreme Court faces challenging decisions during every term; however this year abortion and gun rights cases could make or break the image of non-partisan independence. These cases also illustrate the disturbing hypocrisy of pro-life advocates who also support unrestricted gun rights.

While some people sincerely believe in sanctity of life and oppose killing of any kind, others saying Roe v. Wade must be overturned also claim no restrictions should be placed on guns or their use. The rationale for overturning the Court's 1973 ruling and its 1992 decision that abortions were legal before fetal viability at 24 weeks, centers on an implied right of privacy found in the 14th amendment. Conservatives argue since there’s no explicit language regarding abortion, states should decide whether to ban it.

This argument could also apply when considering individual gun rights. Before 2008, the court used the second amendment’s original text saying states and local governments could impose restrictions because no language existed about individual rights. So only people in “well regulated” militias had a constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.”

If Roe v. Wade is overturned the court must also overturn its 2008 “Heller” decision in order to maintain consistent constitutional interpretation. Otherwise they can’t claim to be free from political influence. One wonders if given a choice, would pro-life and pro-gun supporters still favor banning abortion if it meant individual gun rights could be restricted?

Other decisions such as “Citizens United” and “Shelby County” should be overturned, too, so corporate money can’t be used to fund campaigns and voting rights can’t be suppressed or nullified using state laws. Inconsistent rulings will necessitate court reforms and modifying the filibuster. Voters must reject GOP candidates to prevent further corruption of the court and other federal, state and local entities.

Linda Doenitz, Bloomington

0 Comments
1
2
0
0
1

Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

News Alerts

Breaking News