IS IT TIME TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

 

                         …Here is the very conservative 2021 U.S. Supreme Court

 

Even the Governor of the largest U.S. State disagrees with the 2021 U.S. Supreme Court

 

I was very surprised when I read that my Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, actually wrote an Op-Ed article that was published by a number of U.S. newspapers.

On the other hand, it was obvious as to why he wrote it, when you read about the subject of the article.  It was his attitude against how the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to allow Texas to use the threat of civil lawsuits to nullify U.S. women’s constitutional right to control their own body.

Newsome has stated that: “If this kind of lawmaking is fair play, then California will at least use this tool to save lives instead of harming them.”

That’s why this month the governor is calling on the California Legislature to send him a bill creating a similar way to take action against those who produce or sell assault weapons and “ghost guns” in California.

Here is the rest of his article:

“Many Californians applauded this move when I announced it, but some have argued that California should not follow Texas down this path of vigilante justice. I understand the concern. But I strongly disagree from this point of view.

Let me be clear: The Supreme Court should never have opened this door in the first place. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it, it’s “madness” to approve a state law like Texas’s “that chills the exercise of a constitutional right and aims to evade judicial review.” California opposed the Texas’ ploy at the Supreme Court, and I wish the court had agreed with us. But so long as this door is open to states, we’re going to walk through it, too, to protect Californians and bolster our common-sense gun laws that have come under attack. It’s not “taking the low road” to seize an opportunity to keep people safe.

And unlike the Texas law, my proposal would not chill a current constitutional right. No binding precedent has ever held that weapons of war or homemade “ghost guns” that evade basic regulation are constitutionally protected. Texas’s law, on the other hand, blatantly flouts Roe v. Wade’s fundamental protections.

Maybe California’s move will lead the court to change its mind about allowing Texas’s bounty-hunter scheme. If that’s the case, women’s reproductive care across our nation would be better off. If there’s anything I’ve learned as a father of four kids, it is that sometimes you don’t realize you’ve made a mistake until you see the consequences of your actions come true.

Or maybe Congress will respond to both laws — and also Florida’s recent proposal to allow private suits against those teaching “critical race theory,” by putting an end to this chaos and making it easier to challenge these laws up front, before suits filed under those laws result in thousands of dollars in damages.

But if only radical conservative interests follow Texas’s playbook, we’ll never see change.

Other critics have argued that California’s plan will never work. They say that this Supreme Court will not blink at upholding a Texas abortion ban while striking down a California gun ban. But there is no principled way to do that. The court itself said so. In his opinion for the majority, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch claimed that it was holding Texas abortion providers to the same standard as those who would sue to vindicate “the right to bear arms, or any other right.” In a separate opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. recognized that Texas’s scheme could be used by other states regardless “of the federal right infringed.” And at a hearing last month, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh asked Texas’s lawyer whether the state’s position would mean that gun laws could be insulated from review, too. Texas’s answer: “Yes.” The court knew what it was opening the door to when it affirmed Texas’s procedural games.

Of course, it’s always possible the court could find some way to gerrymander its ruling to allow Texas to use this plan for abortions, but not California for assault weapons and ghost guns.

But if the court is going to be that hypocritical, then at least we will be shining a spotlight on how the branch of the federal government charged with upholding the rule of law is trampling it instead.

There’s value in that, too.  California isn’t afraid to take bold steps. We stand up for our values; we don’t sit by idly when they come under attack. The Texas decision is an abomination, and I’m proud to respond not with quiet complicity but with action to protect women’s rights and keep our communities safer.”

Gavin Newsom

I agree with the Governor that the Texas decision is totally against what the majority of American’s expect from the highest court in the land.

But when you have a majority of the court that has an attitude that is against that majority, maybe it is time to increase the number of Justices on the court to balance out their thinking.

Copyright G. Ater 2021