This article was added by the user . TheWorldNews is not responsible for the content of the platform.

Guns and Abortion: Are there inconsistent decisions or consistency?

Article author:

The Associated Press

Associated Press

Kate Brumback, Adam Geller MichaelTarm

These are the most severe polarization problems in American life: abortion and guns. And the two major decisions of the Supreme Court over the two days did nothing but resolve them. A conservative judge in court has sparked a debate over whether history and the Constitution are faithful and consistent.

For some critics, the ruling is obvious and represents a seriously damaging contradiction. How can a court justify limiting the state's ability to regulate guns while expanding the state's power to regulate abortion?

"Hypocrisy is intensifying, but the harm is endless," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday after the court announced an abortion decision. rice field.

For supporters, court conservatives continue to adhere to the country's founding principles and undo past mistakes.

Former Vice President Mike Pence said Friday that the court corrected a historic error when it revoked the right to abortion, which has been going on for nearly 50 years. On Twitter, he said the decision returned Americans the power to "govern themselves at the state level in a way that is consistent with their values ​​and aspirations."

Opponents of the controversial 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, who upheld the right to abortion, said that the Supreme Court at the time was what the majority of judges are doing now. Said that he did to blame. position.

The current conservative majority of the courts presenting their ideas in this week's decision set the precedent for the country's founders and the returned history. Sticking to it, it's very consistent, and even those supporters say.

In both decisions, the majority argue that if a right is provided by the US Constitution, the government's regulatory standards for that right are very high. However, if rights are not explicitly stated, state and federal governments have more room to impose restrictions.

But for those who study the court, the reality is more complicated.

Many judgments agree that for all disputes in the judgment, the majority of judges follow at least consistent legal theory in making abortion and gun decisions.

"I understand that it may look hypocritical, but from the perspective of the conservative majority of the court, it is consistent in both cases. It's an approach, "said Richard Albert, a professor of law. University of Texas at Austin. "By the way, I'm not saying that's right, but from their point of view, it's completely consistent and consistent."

But the consistency is President Donald Trump. The fact that there has been an earthquake change in court since he appointed three conservatives cannot be hidden. And that is likely to further obscure public perceptions of institutions that prefer to consider themselves above politics, court observers say.

Both decisions are "from the same court whose legitimacy is plummeting," said Laurence Tribe, a leading constitutional professor at Harvard Law School.

Both the court's majority decision on gun rights and the one-day decision on abortion rely on a philosophy of constitutional interpretation called "originalism." To assess what rights the Constitution gives, originalists focus on what it means when the text is written.

The opinions of the originalists are often filled with a detailed investigation of history, as are both of these judgments.

Most of Judge Clarence Thomas's views on gun rights were founded in history and when the Constitutional Amendment Article 2 was created in the 1860s, and when legislators created Article 14. It describes the intention of the person. Thomas broke a long list of historical figures, including King Henry VIII, who said the ruling was concerned that the appearance of a pistol threatened his subject's longbow proficiency. ..

The abortion judgment made by Judge Samuel Alito also digs deeper into the past and says that there was nothing in the historical record supporting the constitutional right to obtain an abortion. I have concluded.

"Not only was there no support for such constitutional rights until just before Roe, but abortion was a long-standing crime in all states," wrote Alito.

The two decisions this week are more legally consistent than critics suggest, said Jonathan Entin, an emeritus professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

"We can discuss the meaning of Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment, but Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment clearly states the right to keep and bear arms, but access to abortion. The right is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, "he said. .. "If that's where you go, maybe these decisions aren't in such tension after all."

Not all observers agree.

"I think there is a double standard here," said Barry McDonald, a professor of law at Pepperdine University, in both decisions on law and history. He said the logic is unstable given the conclusions of many legal historians that the right to exercise the right to exercise in the Bill of Rights is, in fact, much narrower than the majority of courts claim.

However, most ordinary Americans will not be familiar with such complex legal theories. Instead, many will scale the court's actions based on the personal implications of their perceptions and decisions about the judge's motivations, experts said.

Many would likely see this ruling as a direct result of Trump's appointment and the judge's determination to carry out his proceedings, and the courts are "a system of politics rather than law." McDonald's said. .. The

tribes said the claim that the majority of the courts accepted the fictitious past and only upheld the law was false. The majority of judges can claim that they are legally consistent. But in summary, the gun and abortion decision created the effects of whiplash from courts claiming to protect the rights of individuals, and subsequently effectively restricted many Americans' control over their bodies. He said.

"I think the decision is in a radically different direction," the tribe said. "But one thing they all have in common is that they are willing to throw away the precedent altogether in the name of a version of originalism that has no limits on their power and is not really together."