Originally Posted by
Teo9969
Conservatives would have a real problem with this framing given the impact on the topic of abortion (you either see the consistency in this point or you don't, but for the sake of this thread I will not argue this point any further)
I have a bigger problem framing this issue in this way because the impacts of alcohol on society, good and bad are very different than the impacts of guns on society, good and bad.
It *is* the governments job to legislate some degree of morality. Rights are based in morality, and it's this very reason why people above believing that the court should somehow be apolitical is problematic. Many of the differences between parties, but also where we agree, comes down to fundamental assumptions that we hold simply because we do, not because there is some objectively knowable truth. That's what makes politics so sticky. Back to abortion (not to discuss, but to make the clearest point): If you believe life starts at conception, holding the right to life makes sense. If you don't believe life begins until birth, holding a woman's right to choose makes sense. And there a million ways to define life, so there are a million ways to interpret legislation addressing that issue.
The supreme court should be an interpreting body that reflects the beliefs of its people in it's wisest and most discerning form, not an arbiter of truth. It mostly is that, but in a country that disagrees on so many base assumptions of morality, their job (and the job of all politicians) is by default more difficult.
Bookmarks