{"id":275301,"date":"2022-06-25T14:49:37","date_gmt":"2022-06-25T09:19:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=275301"},"modified":"2022-10-12T16:30:00","modified_gmt":"2022-10-12T11:00:00","slug":"roe-vs-wade-abortion-rights-us-supreme-court-guns-second-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/us-news\/roe-vs-wade-abortion-rights-us-supreme-court-guns-second-amendment\/","title":{"rendered":"In Trump’s shadow, two 6-3 US Supreme Court decisions undo gun control moves, abortion rights\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
By Kenneth Tiven<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Proof that America is a conflicted nation is reflected by how you interpret two just announced 6-3 Supreme Court decisions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n On GUN RIGHTS: The ability to carry a loaded gun in public for \u201cpersonal protection\u201d expands by redefining the intent of the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: A woman\u2019s ability to choose an abortion as a family planning option is severely restricted by gutting the Roe v. Wade decision from 50 years ago, once considered \u201csettled law.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Both of these issues kept many voters emotionally tied to former President Donald Trump as his three court appointments shifted the Supreme Court\u2019s ideological balance in the direction they wanted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The half of the nation disappointed by the Court\u2019s 17th-century view of interpreting the Constitution cannot escape that this happens as Trump is out of office. There is irony with the concurrent probe into the January 6 insurrection revealing the former president to be a major player in planning the coup in violation of his oath of office. The 21st-century electronic evidence and sworn testimony from his associates demonstrate his culpability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regardless of what happens to Trump, his role in changing the federal courts will be his legacy. It is proof that elections have consequences. The protests and response to this will impact a nation already struggling with sharp ideological differences heading toward November elections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reality of these legal decisions accomplishes a multi-decade effort by Republicans to shift the Supreme Court away from the use of \u201dstare decisis,\u201d the legal concept that prior decisions have relevance in ascertaining the validity of new cases. The abortion decision is not surprising, as a draft of Justice Samuel Alito\u2019s reasoning leaked several weeks ago. He told his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005 that he viewed the abortion rights landmark as an \u2018important precedent.\u2019 Seventeen years later, he changed his attitude with a strident opinion that four colleagues signed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The three liberal justices \u2014two are women\u2014strongly dissented, charging that the majority failed to consider how abortion rights shape the fabric of women\u2019s lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Their dissent says the Court should overturn earlier precedents only upon changes in legal doctrine. When the earlier decisions were only a few years old and didn\u2019t have the chance to set many precedents, or when fundamental changes make the earlier decisions obsolete. \u201cNone of those factors apply here: Nothing \u2014 and in particular, no significant legal or factual change \u2014 supports overturning a half-century of settled law giving women control over their reproductive lives.\u201d Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan wrote rather bluntly, \u201cThe Court reverses course today for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of this Court has changed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Alito\u2019s view, \u201cfear that our decision will imperil\u201d rights to contraception access, same-sex marriage, and sex with members of the same sex were \u201cunfounded.\u201d However, Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion<\/a>, said the Court should \u201creconsider\u201d rulings that protect contraception and same-sex marriage based on privacy rights under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So, the abortion case reflects a religious and ideological position that the rights of a fetus begin at the moment of conception. Supporters of this position define themselves as \u201cPro-life.\u201d Many have scant recognition of any contradiction with expanding the right to carry guns in public when firearms violence spikes and the killing of school children is alarming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n