Curious Supreme Court opinion should be strong argument against excessive regulations (but it won’t be)

Last updated on: July 10, 2016 at 11:33 pm by Mark Meckler

Curious Supreme Court opinion should be strong argument against excessive regulations (but it won’t be) 2016-07-10T23:33:41-06:00 Mark Meckler

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Embed from Getty Images

The standing argument when it comes to criminals being criminals is that not a single, extra law would ever prevent them from committing the crime they are hell-bent on committing. But that truth has never stopped big government proponents from adding new regulations anyway.

“More gun laws are needed,” they say, after mass shootings like the one in Orlando. “If only there was a waiting period after a gun purchase,” goes the thinking. Then what? The killer would have a chance to consider the law against murder and change his mind? This line of thinking is ludicrous, yet its prevalence runs rampant in Washington.

But a curious thing appeared in a recent Supreme Court opinion that if read out of context, would be considered a very strong argument against excessive regulations having any impact on lawbreakers:

But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.

As David French at National Review pointed out, you might think the Supreme Court had gone “crazy right-wing” were it not for the context in which the argument was made. And that’s what makes this all the more egregious.

The argument was made in the SCOTUS opinion that struck down the Texas law that required abortion facilities to be as sanitary as surgical facilities. The majority opinion stated on page 27 that no “new overlay of regulations” would have prevented the practices of serial abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who is serving a life sentence for killing live babies on his unsanitary abortion tables.

With that context in mind, reading, “Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations,” has a whole new meaning.

The federal government is fine making this argument when it comes to “women’s health” but not when it comes to American’s guaranteed Second Amendment rights.

It’s yet another reason why we need, more than ever, a Convention of States.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

July 10, 2016

College interns demand lax dress code at work and get exactly what they deserve

Next Post

July 11, 2016 Matt Damon makes statement on guns during promotion of new action film full of guns?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Messiah" mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Anointed One Savior Teacher Sacrifice