In abortion ruling, our system worked
Let's see. Conservatives twice vote a president into office, and the majority rules.The president then appoints conservative judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, reflecting the views of the majority. The court's decision on the abortion issue happens to coincide with the views of those in the majority, and the majority's views are reinforced. It seems with this court, "moral concerns" are a consideration to the law where in recent previous courts they were not.
At this time, the majority of voters, men and women, are against abortion and outnumber those who are for it. It all started at the ballot box. So the country does not go backward just because you don't agree with the decision. It goes forward and our system of representation is maintained.
My response to the editorial board:
The role of the United States Supreme Court never was, isn't, and never should be to interpret cultural and contemporary morality. Furthermore, the judicial review was created to protect the rights of citizens against the very thing you seem to be advocating--popular will. As James Madison himself has quoted, "Wherever the real power in Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of constituents, but from acts in Government is the mere instrument of the major number of its constituents."
As discussed by Clint Bollick, the Litigation Director at Institute for Justice, the Brown v. Board of Education decision "invalidated scores of laws reflecting passionately held social views, overturned well-established precedent, and cast America into upheaval." The United States of America is not, and should not be, for that matter, a pure democracy. It is a constitutional republic, one where oppression of the minority by the majority is checked and balanced by an impartial entity--the Supreme Court. The role of justices is not to interpret morality, it is to apply the constitutional criterion, one that not even a majority can overturn.
1 comment:
just to clarify, from what I understand about this article, you're simply saying that the Supreme Court's desicion against abortion was made in order to keep them out of hot water by trying not to upset the majority of the U.S. population and was not influenced by the constitutionality... However, what happens when nothing about a topic is included in the constitution; how would they decide the outcome? right now, we are facing a new millineum, and it's accompanied by a new culture and overall new views on many different things, including the never ending arguement over what exactly is moral... The Supreme Court's interpretation of a subject like abortion obviously must change according to the time era, seeing as something that may seem unconstitutional a couple decades ago may seem constitutional now, and vica versa (like slavery)... And seeing as for the second time in a row the Supreme Court upheld its desicion regarding the banning of partial birth abortions (the first time being with different justices), it is obvious that they do not find it to be moral, but overall and most importantly, they do not find it to be constitutional...
Post a Comment