[czstar]

The primary role of the court is to preserve rights. It’s job is to make sure laws aren’t enforced that violate established rights. It’s job is to tell governments at all levels that certain laws passed are illegal because they violate rights. Imagine a city saying that burning a Koran is illegal and a crime punishable by death. I very much hope the Court would step in and say that law is illegal. I think you don’t understand the historical role the court has played. It does more than preserve or expand rights but that is one of its primary functions.

EDIT: Let me be more precise. The purpose of the Court is to clarify rights. It’s job is to decide what exactly is meant by “equal protection”, “freedom of speech”, etc.

[OrangeMonkey]

I feel like we are talking past each other and that may have been my fault.

I think we agree that the courts job is to enforce laws, and the constitution, that define our rights (or the reach of government).

I think we agree that it would be improper for a court to just make up a right - All people with blond hair can skip lines at dairy queen.

I think the point we are (perhaps?) disagreeing on is what makes a right. I think the historic context of it is the constitution and government laws. I think (perhaps wrongly, I don't know whats in your mind) state that the courts can define new rights.

Like I said - its a hot button topic, and I think I will probably need to remove myself from it soon, but I see this as the court previously creating a right where none exists and asking the legislatures to do their job. I hope that helps explain the thoughts from my side.

Cheers man.

[czstar]

EDIT: I understand your position. It makes sense. There is nothing objectionable with it. Below is what I see where the essence of the divergence of views on this topic come from. Have a great day!

Three highly intelligent and very knowledgeable members of the Court wrote an opinion on why Roe should not be overturned. Their eloquence and reasoning are far greater than mine. You should read what they wrote to see the legal basis of their position. It was not some right made out of thin air as in your Dairy Queen example.

Now 6 members of the court who are equally intelligent and knowledgeable wrote an opinion on why Roe should be overturned. Their eloquence and reasoning are far greater than mine. I read parts of their decision. I disagree with their reasoning. Herein lies the problem.

Human language lacks mathematical precision (I’m a mathematician and not a lawyer) and so we end up in a situation where equally smart, knowledgeable people have completely different conclusions about the same set of statements. This in itself is a cause of chaos.

In what I’ve written to you I have avoided saying things like, “there is no legal basis for overturning Roe”. Clearly there is a legal basis for doing so. Clearly there is a legal basis for not doing so. What I concentrate on are the consequences for this decision. I think the unintended consequences will be dire. Personally I think the Constitution needs to be rewritten. What worked in 1800 isn’t necessarily workable in 2022 in a much larger country with a much larger population.

[OrangeMonkey]

I think you are right that we may not agree with each other but I now understand your position and appreciate you explaining it.

Its funny - we probably agree with each other on the items you think we disagree.

Seriously though, I do suggest reaching out to your local state representatives if you have never done it. I've done it multiple times and have always been impressed by the discussion, their opinions, and actions from it. This is just general advice disconnected from the article / topic. Hopefully you have a similar experience.

Been a good conversation man.