Supreme Court abandons original constitutional goal of protecting minority rights – Dakota Free Press

Skidmore professor, constitutional scholar and author Beau Breslin argues that the Alito Court’s return to states’ rights over abortion policy violates the original purpose of a constitution:

What tends to happen is that the courts, the Supreme Court in particular, forget the function of a constitution. A constitution does many things, but its main purpose is to limit the power of majorities. Whenever there is a rights-based decision that pits the majority against the minority, it is incumbent on the court to seriously consider the protection of minority interests. Our four main federal government institutions all represent different constituencies. The House of Representatives represents local constituencies, the Senate represents states, and the President represents the nation as a whole. What is left are the unaccountable, undemocratic, tenured, fixed-salary Federal Court judges, and their responsibility is to be the voice of those who otherwise have no voice in the process. Politics. There is a rationalization for cases like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade because you protect minority interests. But today, the court throws things to the States. It’s just sending it back to the majority. Doesn’t make sense from the Supreme Court’s perspective [Dr. Beau Skidmore, interview with Clay S. Jenkinson, “What If Every Generation of Americans Wrote Its Own Constitution?” Governing, 2022.09.04].

Basic rights should not change or disappear when an American crosses state lines. South Dakota should not be able to say that women, Indians, or visitors to Minnesota lose bodily autonomy or freedom of speech when traveling from Minneapolis to Sioux Falls. A Supreme Court that prides itself on being “originalist” must return to the original purpose of the Constitution and provide uniform protection for the rights of all Americans against the tyrannies that have sprung up in some regressive states.