Chief Justice Roberts Should Retire

 

Pamela Paul’s suggestion, that Chief Justice Roberts, by retiring, would help the Supreme Court move toward positions that more broadly reflect the opinions of most Americans, rather than those of an extremist faction, is naive and nonsensical. Granted his replacement by a liberal Chief would tip the ideological balance on the court a little to the left. But the remaining five Justices, constituting the ultra-conservative majority, would still be firmly entrenched and will continue their march toward dismantling the rule of law, protecting the rich and corporate citizenry, the ultra-religious and the gun-crazed segment of society. Only expanding the court or imposing fixed terms will prevent the current constitutional death spiral from continuing into the foreseeable future.

Police Say Unarmed Black Man in Traffic Stop Was Shot 60 Times

 This country has been afflicted by an epidemic of police shootings stemming from routine traffic stops. Many states and localities have responded by placing limits on the police practice of pursuing fleeing motorists. The sensible rule adopted in these jurisdictions is that pursuit should not be initiated if the risk of harm to the police or others outweighs the risk posed by failing to effect the stop. So, for example, a broken taillight does not warrant a high-speed chase that may result in traffic fatalities or the gunning down of the motorist.

Unfortunately, this sound restriction on police response has not been universally adopted or regularly adhered to. As a consequence, the nation continues to suffer a plethora of these tragic and unnecessary shootings.

Police Say Unarmed Black Man in Traffic Stop Was Shot 60 Times

 This country has been afflicted by an epidemic of police shootings stemming from routine traffic stops. Many states and localities have responded by placing limits on the police practice of pursuing fleeing motorists. The sensible rule adopted in these jurisdictions is that pursuit should not be initiated if the risk of harm to the police or others outweighs the risk posed by failing to effect the stop. So, for example, a broken taillight does not warrant a high-speed chase that may result in traffic fatalities or the gunning down of the motorist.

Unfortunately, this sound restriction on police response has not been universally adopted or regularly adhered to. As a consequence, the nation continues to suffer a plethora of these tragic and unnecessary shootings.

The 14th Amendment and Fetal Rights

 

Erika Bachiochi's erudite-sounding defense of a ban on abortion, as the protection of a separate, vulnerable person dependent on the care of its host, fails to consider all the ramifications of unintended pregnancy. 

For one, pregnancy may be the result of rape, a brutal tactic often employed in war to dishearten and impair an enemy population. These pregnancies are war crimes akin to the random planting of landmines and the notion that a rape victim has some moral or legal obligation to nurture and complete the intended crime is simply unconscionable. 

The originalist argument, that the drafters of the 14^th Amendment intended to protect unborn life, is equally flawed. Even if true, and that is disputable, the drafters were all 19^th century men, hardly exemplars of those who would protect women's rights.

Roe v. Wade is Overturned

 What voters must remember, and what historians will surely highlight, is that a hijacked Supreme Court made this most consequential decision. But for the Republicans' chicanery in denying President Obama his right to appoint a Justice and the precedent- shattering rush to allow a defeated President Trump to name Justice Ginsberg's successor, there would not have been an ultra-conservative majority of Justices willing to destroy a "super-precedent" and to return women to the health hazards and diminished status of fifty years ago.

This unconscionable decision by an illegitimate court mandates a remedy that should include altering the structure of the court or imposing term limits on Justices. It should also impel voters to insure that, going forward, there will be a Senate majority committed to upholding the rule of law.

Don't Add Limits on Firearms. Hold Gun Makers Liable.

 

The column by Todd Tanner is illogical, self-contradictory and unhelpful. His extensive quoting of Charlton Heston's gun worshipping speech to the National Rifle Association is stomach-turning and revealing.

First, Mr. Tanner poses the prospect of an oppressive federal government as justification for the glut of firearms, especially military grade, awash in our society. While he rejects laws that would limit or control sale or possession of guns (after all, our farmers must be well-armed to resist tyranny) he proposes that the manufacturers of all this weaponry be made susceptible to liability for their production of arms that are misused to slaughter innocents.

Holding gun makers liable, especially for their irresponsible promotion of sales to youngsters, may be part of the solution but it can hardly be the sole means of stemming the tidal wave of mass murder happening only in this country. And since Mr. Tanner seems to favor a fully-armed citizenry, ready to preserve liberty threatened by government oppression, it would seem self-defeating to punish arms makers for fulfilling their civic duty.

A Modest Proposal for Gun Safety

 

I’d like to offer a modest proposal to address the issues of mass shootings and the need for gun safety, a solution that should satisfy the originalist members of the Supreme Court and true advocates of the Second Amendment.
The federal government should agree to provide to every family unit in America such arms as are consistent with the understanding of the framers of the Constitution, namely a muzzle-loading,single-shot long gun or pistol.
The provision of these weapons should be conditioned upon the required surrender of any weaponry not encompassed by the vision of the framers. Further, the person in each family responsible for keeping and bearing the weapons must agree to enlist in a Militia where the handling and use of the arms may be well regulated in order to insure the security of a free State.