Against the backdrop of legitimacy concerns the Supreme Court has returned for its new term. That probably means amid a to-do list that more controversial and deeply unpopular rulings are preparing to come out of Washington. On Wednesday, each of the justices gathered for their first ‘conference’ of the new term though it is unclear which direction the term is set to go. If the last is anything to go by, many Americans may find that the court will rule entirely against modern Americans in favour of christofascism once again.
After two years of staunch COVID restrictions, Chief Justice John Roberts (who denies that the court has lost its legitimacy) has announced per reports that the public is once again to be allowed into the courtroom. However, details regarding this haven’t been fully announced as of yet.
Justice Elena Kagan previously announced in New York City during an appearance that the court would be soon further investigating the infamous leak that led the public to discover that the Supreme Court had turned its back on an already settled law otherwise known as Roe vs Wade. That decision infamously overturned the basic right to choose to have an abortion which led to an almost instantaneous backlash against the court sparking questions about its legitimacy since the ascension of right-wingers like Amy Coney Barrett.
On the other side of the coin, one particular case should interest America. On the likely docket, this term is a case involving Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It aims to protect internet companies (think Google and Facebook for example) from lawsuits about the content that may be found or published within. The problem is that many across the political spectrum have long argued that this allows companies to essentially get away with anything because they aren’t required to moderate content regardless. Social media companies as a result have long allowed the proliferation of questionable content including but not limited too: the manifestos of mass shooters, racist content, content targeting women and protected groups, and various other kinds of information. Internet companies of course are trying to stop this law from being altered.
Another case that might catch the attention of Americans. Back during the Trump Administration, a gun ‘add-on’ known as bump stocks were banned following the mass shooting that took place during the time. A lawsuit to be presented before the Supreme Court is seeking to undo this ban but it isn’t clear why. Bump stocks allow semiautomatic rifles to shoot multiple rounds with one trigger pull rather than having to pull the trigger multiple times. Overturning this ban would be consequentially dangerous to the United States considering the U.S struggles deeply with reeling in its host of previous and budding mass shooters.
Be First to Comment