Thomas and Kavanaugh Questioned the "Justifiable Need" Restrictions for 2A But Not for Abortion
After SCOTUS dismissed all the Second Amendment cases, Justice Clarence Thomas was joined by Brett Kavanaugh in a dissent on the refusal of the Court to listen to Rogers vs. Grewal's case. The dissenting judges said some states limited the rights to bear arms for most citizens except in situations considered as "good cause" or "justifiable need." They protested the decision of the Supreme Court to discard all the Second Amendment cases despite the issue being a hotly contested affair affecting the constitutional rights of many Americans.
“One would think that such an onerous burden on a fundamental right would warrant this Court’s review,” Thomas said. “This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights.”
Clarence added that the Court practised double standards by not allowing states to require "justifiable need" for abortion, but looked the other way when such requirements were imposed on the Second Amendment rights.
“And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion,” Thomas said. “But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way.”
The duo argued that such limitations amounted to a ban on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right. They disputed the constitutionality of the "good cause" or the "justifiable need" reasons for banning firearms. They said using the anticipation of injuries or destruction of property to limit the ability of a citizen to carry a gun violated the Second Amendment rights.
They added that it was the court's duty was to resolve matters when the lower courts of appeal conflicted. The First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits upheld the constitutionality of "justifiable reason" and "good cause" by applying the intermediate scrutiny standard. The dissenting judges, therefore, said the Supreme Court ought to have settled the matters to resolve the conflict.
"We should settle the conflict among the lower courts so that the fundamental protections set forth in our Constitution are applied equally to all citizens."
The litigants had similar expectations when they sought the intervention of the Supreme Court to resolve the issues. However, the court decided to abscond its duty and sweep the violations of the citizens' constitutional rights under the carpet.
Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is pushing universal background checks in our state, and if left unchecked, it will not be long until we see bills like this getting traction in Austin. Texas is embarrassingly ranked 29th for gun rights, and with the help of the political elites in Austin, we will surely rank among New York, California, and Illinois if left to their own devices. Please join our fight today, and help us restore Texas' place as the standard for the U.S.
Join LSGR - https://www.lsgr.live/join
Sign our petition - https://www.lsgr.live/petition
Send a postcard to Dan Patrick - https://www.lsgr.live/store/Postcard-to-Lt-Gov-Patrick-p158378407
.png)