LETTER: The justices and bump stocks
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on bump stocks has brought another howl of objection to this “change in policy,” much like the complaints over the ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. The media are aiding and abetting this misinformation about the court’s duty and responsibility, so let me clarify:
All too many of our laws are poorly written or have unintended consequences. The court’s role is to determine what the language of a law actually means and whether a lower court decision, or the law on which the decision was based, violates the Constitution. It is not supposed to consider the merits or public opinion.
When a law is badly written, however, the court’s interpretation becomes difficult and subject to change. The members of Congress for whom we vote are supposed to represent our views. If we don’t like the policies they write into law, it is up to us to vote for someone else. If you don’t vote, you have no business complaining.
