The Supreme Court rulings represent the tyranny of the minority

I keep hearing the argument that 'the court is not political, republicans have picked justices that follow the law as it is written'.

That is a horse manure argument. Whose kidding whom here? Five of the justices were hand picked by the Federalist Society, and Trump merely rubber stamped their selections. Trump isn't the kind of man who reads court rulings and would even weigh in on the selection, he just wants to keep his pledge, yes, a pledge, do what he is told on the abortion issue, which was to pick justices who would repeal Roe v Wade. Mission accomplished,

This is an agenda driven court. In my view, that point is irrefutable, inescapable, undeniable, and incontrovertible which is to say, simply undeniable x 4.

Well, if we are going to have politically and agenda driven court, then the court should be subject to the will of the people. Currently, it's subject to, and shaped by, a minority.

This crap must stop. Allow me to remind republicans that there are more of us than there are of you, and it's beginning to look like the minority is pushing the majority around way too much.

I know Gorsuch loves to exclaim that a good judge shouldn't be concerned with the consequence of his rulings, well, allow me to remind you republicans that when your judges ignore the consequences of their rulings there will be consequences for republicans at the ballot box.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...abortion-roe-guns-represent-minority-tyranny/

By Max Boot

Everyone knows that the Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the majority. That’s why they built so many checks and balances into the Constitution. What’s less well known is that they were also afraid of the tyranny of the minority. That’s why they scrapped the Articles of Confederation, which required agreement from 9 of 13 states to pass any laws, and enacted a Constitution with much stronger executive authority.

In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton warned that giving small states like Rhode Island or Delaware “equal weight in the scale of power” with large states like “Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York” violated the precepts of “justice” and “common-sense.” “The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller,” he predicted, arguing that such a system contradicts “the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.”

It is a fundamental maxim that a republican government requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.

This refutes the idea that Hamilton or the founders wanted the minority to always win.

Hamilton’s nightmare has become the reality of 21st-century America. We are living under minoritarian tyranny, with smaller states imposing their views on the larger through their disproportionate sway in the Senate and the electoral college — and therefore on the Supreme Court. To take but one example: Twenty-one states with fewer total people than California have 42 Senate seats. This undemocratic, unjust system has produced the new Supreme Court rulings on gun control and abortion.

The current situation, 21 states with fewer population that California have 42 Senate seats and California has only 2. The founding fathers could not foresee such a reality that exists today, and by that fact, the issue needs to be fixed. Because, write large, this is the reason why are are seeing a tyranny of the minority, a plight which the founding fathers did not want, they were opposed to all kinds of tyranny.

These are issues on which public opinion is lopsidedly in favor on what, for want of a better word, we might call the “liberal” side. Following the Uvalde, Tex., shooting, a recent poll showed that 65 percent of Americans want stricter gun controls; only 28 percent are opposed. Public opinion is just as clear on abortion: Fifty-four percent of Americans want to preserve Roe v. Wade and only 28 percent want to overturn it. Fifty-eight percent want abortion to be legal in most or all cases.

Yet the Supreme Court’s hard-right majority just overruled a New York law that made it difficult to get a permit to carry a gun, while upholding a Mississippi law that banned all abortions after 15 weeks. This represents a dramatic expansion of gun rights and an equally dramatic curtailment of abortion rights.

Now, the Supreme Court has no obligation to follow the popular will. It is charged with safeguarding the Constitution. But it is hard for any disinterested observer to have any faith in what the right-wing justices are doing. They are not acting very conservatively in overturning an abortion ruling (Roe v. Wade) that is 49 years old and a New York state gun-control statute that is 109 years old. In both cases, the justices rely on dubious readings of legal history that have been challenged by many scholars to overturn what had been settled law.


You may disagree with WaPo's and Boot's point of view, that is acceptable and expected, but I will not accept shoot-the-messenger/source arguments for this source as a valid argument, again, such arguments will be summarily dismissed and will be ignored.

Please note that I do not believe that there are not legitimate shoot-the-messenger/source arguments where it is warranted, such as against the Wonkette and Gatewaypundit or Alex Jones. Such arguments are warranted, in my view, only where the messenger and/or source are extremely on the fringe. But centrists and leaning left or right don't get you there.

Max Boot is a Russian-American author, consultant, editorialist, lecturer, and military historian.[2] He worked as a writer and editor for Christian Science Monitor and then for The Wall Street Journal in the 1990s. He is currently the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a contributor to The Washington Post. He has written for numerous publications such as The Weekly Standard, the Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times, and he has also authored books of military history.[3] In 2018, Boot published The Road Not Taken, a biography of Edward Lansdale, and The Corrosion of Conservatism: Why I Left the Right, which details Boot's "ideological journey from a 'movement' conservative to a man without a party"[4] in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election. --Wikipedia