I was puzzled by the editorial headline “Does the Supreme Court believe in states’ rights or not?” (June 26, TribLIVE). The author insinuates that the court politically chooses between what is a constitutional right. The court, in reversing Roe and the New York gun law, was both consistent and logical in its constitutional interpretation.
Roe attempted to create a federally protected abortion right. The court correctly determined abortion is a state’s right interest. New York tried to curtail the Second Amendment right to bear arms, alleging a citizen needs to demonstrate a right to self-protection. A constitutional right (abortion) cannot be created where it does not exist, nor can a federally guaranteed right (to bear arms) be eliminated under the veil of a state’s interest.
The author is disappointed by the “political” Supreme Court but no less disappointed than those who experienced the result of the Roe decision 50 years ago or the New York citizens deprived of the right to self-defense.
In 2016, our citizens elected a president who appointed justices consistent with the philosophy of the people who elected him. The current president now has the opportunity to do the same. Rather than accept the constitutional process, the president’s party alleges the Supreme Court is illegitimate and threatens to pack the court to obtain favorable decisions. The opposition would be better suited to accepting this process rather than trashing the foundation of our government since, without our constitutional protections, we are no better than citizens of a tyrannical government subject to the whims of autocratic abuse.
Richard Lafferty
Buffalo Township