The Analysis: people that are criticizing Roe from a political, not moral standpoint are most likely lying
One such reason for the confusion on stances that conservatives take on legal matters is that they couch their disagreements with fancy philosophical terms such as originalism, or, in this case, suggesting that it is not the role of the courts to decide matters of abortions.
If that were the case, shouldn’t they let the courts decide gun rights on a state-by-state basis? They do not, as with the case that was recently decided, in the case against New York that ruled their law against letting people bring guns in public with concealed carry. New York had their own rule, and, conservatives have their own vision of the 2nd amendment which is different than the liberals on the Supreme Court that would have decided it. Let’s take a look at what David and Jennifer say in their op-es in the Wall Street Journal as to what the goal of the court is.
On Friday a five-justice majority definitively overruled Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), affirming states’ authority to regulate abortion. In so doing, the court reclaimed its legitimate constitutional role and signaled a willingness to re-examine precedents that strayed across the line between law and policy or misconstrued important constitutional provisions.
Conservatives stance on a federal gun rights completely different on abortion
According to the 538 article by Amelia, Under the new ruling, state governments can no longer argue that a gun restriction should be upheld because it serves an important interest. Instead, judges will only consider whether “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In his opinion, Thomas noted that modern regulations don’t have to be a “dead ringer for historical precursors.”
Whoa! I thought David and Jennifer both said that the Supreme Court was not in the business of interpreting laws or the constitution. David and Jennifer point to the 1997 ruling in Washington v. Glucksberg that doesn’t let the Supreme Court give rights that do not exist in the constitution, yet, even though the 2nd amendment doesn’t give a lot of details, as Amelia points out, the justices, while they didn’t go as far as they could have, leaving many possible future regulations, such as the nature of what guns one can own allowed, and they do not rule out that sensitive places are constitutionally permissible, they somehow pulled from those few lines of text in the constitution all of these lines of reasoning.
You can’t factually say that rights not listed in the constitution are not rights because that is factually wrong
In that case, the Supreme Court was happy to rule on the issue and the merits of the law, and, conservatives probably did not even raise an eyebrow. I mean, if you’re going to go and say that guns are in the constitution and abortion isn’t, you can make that claim, however, the ninth amendment and the tenth amendment ensure that power that is not granted to the federal government is granted to the states, but, also, that the ninth amendment states that rights that are not enumerated should not be construed to mean that those rights do not exist.
So, you can argue that abortion isn’t a right because of moral reasons, maybe, or, that Roe and Casey were decided wrongly, however, you can’t factually say that rights not listed in the constitution are not rights because that is factually wrong. If you’re going to be an originalist about the constitution, you should at least be accurate. No, I’m sorry Carter Snead, you can’t just fiercely campaign to take away other people’s rights for 50 years, then, claim that the only reason that you are opposed to it, is because it was wrongly decided. You say you want to be honest with other people, start with yourself, and, you should start by saying that it is a moral or religious objection, rather than blaming it in bad politics.
 |  |  |
