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

Supreme Court revealed that there are red and blue America

A dangerous moment when nine judges expressed their views on reproductive health, religion, gun rights, and the environment with irreconcilable views in the country's hottest case. Reflected the rest of the country.

The reaction was predictable when the news of the decision swept the state. The Red States were pleased because they competed to ban or further limit procedures, especially in the area of ​​abortion. Meanwhile, the blue states have attempted to digest the amazing new impacts that will change the lives of Americans.

On the other hand, conservatives believe that the majority of judges amend the policy of constitutional law. They realized their 50-year dream of overturning their constitutional right to abortion and at the same time strengthened their right to maintain armed rights for the first time in 10 years.

"Competitionists have a completely different vision of law and American society in general," said Daniel Epps, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

He said the court conservatives "look backwards at what they see as history and tradition."

Meanwhile, Epps warns about what conservative projects mean for the future and how they represent fundamental changes rather than past recovery. Is ringing. "

In the middle are the country and the courts as an institution. No one knows that the building itself (the marble palace) is currently crouching behind a high security fence and not open to the public.

Abortion politics

When the court overturned the Roe v. Wade case, the gap between the two was the tightest.

Judge Samuel Alito expressed his majority in favor and said the court was lost in 1973, recognizing the federal constitutional right to abortion in a groundbreaking opinion.

"Rho was terribly wrong from the beginning," he said at the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. "The reasoning was very weak and the decision had detrimental consequences."

In the case of Alito,Roe and Planned Parenthood v in 1992. Casey's decisiondid not solve the question, only "intensified the debate and deepened the division." He emphasized that "such rights are not implicitly protected by any constitutional protection" and that the decision belongs to the political realm.

But liberals start with women's rights and see the problem from a completely different prism.

"One of the consequences of today's decision is certain," said the three liberal judges, "reducing women's rights and reducing their status as free and equal citizens." Written together in a rare joint opposition.

Now that Dobbs is in the book, opponents say that the nation can "change what is mysterious when freely undertaken into something that may become a nightmare when forced. I can do it. "

At the heart of their thinking was that the Constitution no longer provides a shield, despite "guaranteeing freedom and equality for all."

Conservatives do not recognize the rights to the Constitution, but liberals argue that they are based on the guarantee of freedom in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. A liberal judge said that the framer of the Constitution "understood that the world would change" and that rights could be defined "generally to enable future evolution of its scope and meaning." ..

For conservatives like Carrie Severino, the chairman of the Judicial Crisis Network, a group that supported Trump's candidates, liberals followed precedent in other areas, including Article 2 of the Constitutional Amendment. I'm guilty of not being guilty.

"The left wing has always tried to create a different set of rules for cases involving abortion, and this is just another," she told CNN

A week after the opinion was announced, abortion care is banned or severely restricted in 12 states, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit organization that tracks abortion laws nationwide and supports access to abortion. Five states have implemented total bans, including Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Other states have begun enforcing a six-week ban-most women have banned procedures before even knowing they are pregnant.

The liberal state is working not only to secure funding to protect the clinic, but also to fund the travel and accommodation of women coming from states that are hostile to abortion.

On Friday, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed two bills to protect out-of-state residents seeking reproductive services and assisted reproductive technology providers. The law protects healthcare providers from inquiries from other states and prohibits the delivery of women who come to New Jersey for legal abortion services.

This measure "explicitly protects women's rights outside the state to abortion in New Jersey," Murphy said Friday.

Constitutional Amendment Article 2 and Gun Rights

Constitutional Amendment Article 2 relates to the New York State Rifle&Pistol vs. Brune. The Supreme Court shot down New York. Gun laws enacted over a century ago restricted taking hidden pistols out of the house.

For years, Judge Clarence Thomas and other conservatives urged the court to expand gun rights.

It was Thomas who wrote for the majority of 6-3 in Brune. Not only did he violate New York law, but the court set new standards for evaluating other gun laws, showing the widest expansion of gun rights in 10 years.

Thomas said the government can no longer simply claim that regulation promotes significant interests. Rather, he said, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is "in line with the historical tradition of firearms regulation in this country."

In scholarly opinion, Thomas called him "a long journey in Anglo-American public history" to conclude that he could not fulfill his responsibility to identify the American tradition that New York justified. State law that spent a few pages taking things.

This opinion has a direct impact on a few states that have laws similar to New York law. Andrew Willinger, Managing Director of Duke's Firearms Law Center, said New York has already changed its permit system while imposing stricter training requirements and expanding the list of sensitive locations where guns are banned. He said he was.

At a press conference in Albany, New York on Friday, Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul said: "From day one, I refuse to waive my right as governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence and other forms of harm," he said.

However, Thomas has articulated new standards for courts to use when considering gun law, so in states with strict gun control, a series of new ones from individuals bolded by Thomas' opinion. Challenges can occur.

"We anticipate a full challenge to gun control in the future, especially in regulated states where historical records do not have clear support," Willinger said.

Judge Stephen Breyer, who wrote for his generous colleague, was wondering about Thomas' approach. On some angry pages, he wondered why the majority can tell lower courts that when considering gun law, the legitimacy of state law can be less emphasized.

"The main difference between the court's and my views, I believe, is that this amendment allows the state to take into account the serious problems posed by gun violence." Said.

To explain his claim, Breyer devoted a significant portion of his opinion to the issue of gun violence. He said 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms in 2020, with 277 mass shootings reported since the beginning of the year.

In the majority opinion, Arito wrote separately to criticize Breyer's references to mass shootings.

Again, they seemed to be talking about different cases.

The liberals emphasized the purpose of regulating guns to reduce gun violence, but Arito was interested in those who wanted to protect themselves with guns.

He reasonably believes that he can be killed, raped, or otherwise seriously injured unless he can swing around or use a pistol to attack as needed. I have. "

Church and State

In the case of the freedom of two religions, they were in conflict again and split along the line of ideology. In

Kennedy vs. Bremerton, the court ruled 6-3 in favor of Joe Kennedy, a public high school football coach who wanted to pray at the 50-yard line after the match. Was given. The school district suspended him for fear that the school would appear to support religion in violation of constitutional provisions.

Conservatives regarded the case as discrimination against free movement and free speech. Liberals regarded it as an intertwining of state and religion.

Judge Neil Gorsuch, on the side of Kennedy, has the right to the First Amendment to the Prayer, and the establishment clause is "private for special hatred" by the government. Does not require the selection of religious speeches. " "

The liberals counterattacked and expressed concern that school students might feel forced to participate. Judge Sonia Sotmayor said that a majority of the courts protected the free movement clause. "With almost exclusive attention," he said he broke new ground.

Mr. Sotomayor said the majority of the decisions would be a "school disadvantage" and a country's "long-standing commitment" to separation. Church and state mains cannot exclude religious schools from lesson support programs that allow parents to use vouchers to send their children to public or private schools.

"The state pays certain students privately for tuition. Eat school-unless the school is religious. It's discrimination against religion."

Breyer took the lead on behalf of the liberals and rejected the idea that the case was about discrimination. On the bench, it was that the government needed to move away from the business of funding religion. He argued that neutrality was needed due to the fact that there are 330 million people in the United States of over 100 different religions.

Breyer said the founding clause, which prohibits the government from supporting religion, and the free movement clause, which protects the practice of religion, can work together. "The religious clause gives the main the right to respect its neutrality by choosing not to fund religious schools. As part of the public school lesson program," he said.

Environment and climate change

On the last day of the semester, the courts again split along the ideology. Longmental case in an important environment. A majority of 6-3 curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants

This opinion has broad authority to regulate under the Clean Air Act by the EPA. Ended a fierce battle between states that believed to have. Someone who says he has limited authority.

The conflict began in 2015 when the Obama administration announced a "Clean Power Plan" aimed at combating climate change.

This was immediately challenged by dozens of political parties, including 27 conflicting states, and never came into effect. When Trump took office, his EPA passed the "Affordable Clean Energy" rule. This elicited challenges from others, including the Blue States. West Virginia led the other Red States to the Supreme Court when the DC Circuit frozen its plans.

Even in the Supreme Court, the Red States won.

For Roberts, it was summarized by the authority of government agencies. He said the move to limit carbon dioxide emissions to levels that would force a nationwide transition from coal use to electricity generation "may be a wise solution to the crisis of the day," Congress told the EPA. Broad authority that did not give such a thing.

"The decision on such scale and outcome depends on Congress itself," Roberts said.

Judge Elena Kagan was characteristically insensitive and devoted much of her dissent to environmental issues rather than the power of her agency. If current emissions continue, children born this year will be able to live to see parts of the east coast swallowed by the ocean, "she said. The majority focus on "horrible" government authority.

President Joe Bidencalled this decision "catastrophic," saying that this opinion "retreats" the country and "impairs the country's sustainability." Clean our air and fight climate change.
The American people are politically divided, but overallnot excited about the courtroomGallup has only one in four Americans "great higher" A "transaction" or "quite" of trust in the court. This is a record low, down 11 percentage points from last year.

"The beliefs supported by the majority of conservative courts are not only different, but in reality they are the exact opposite of at least half of the country." Sa id Jessica Levinson, Professor at Loyola Law School.

"Therefore, most of the country may consider the courts out of step with their views, but another swath in the country they ultimately reflect their views. I feel like I have a court, "Levinson said.