Max Boot is known around these parts as “Maximum Bootlicker” for a reason. He is just beyond desperate to please the liberals, despite once having called himself a proud conservative.
And, like his colleague and fellow erstwhile pro-life conservative Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot now finds himself in the cowardly position of defending the nonexistent constitutional “right” to abortion:
Conservatives can plausibly argue that liberal justices invented a constitutional right to abortion but how is that different from what conservative justices have done in inventing an individual right to carry guns that’s also nowhere in the Constitution? https://t.co/OLzvXIfBNT
— Max Boot 🇺🇦 (@MaxBoot) June 27, 2022
Conserving conservatism pic.twitter.com/p1FxSxEcv0
— The Meturgeman (@HaMeturgeman) June 28, 2022
— Luke Thompson (@ltthompso) June 28, 2022
More from Boot:
Hamilton’s nightmare has become the reality of 21st-century America. We are living under minoritarian tyranny, with smaller states imposing their views on the larger through their disproportionate sway in the Senate and the electoral college — and therefore on the Supreme Court. To take but one example: Twenty-one states with fewer total people than California have 42 Senate seats. This undemocratic, unjust system has produced the new Supreme Court rulings on gun control and abortion.
Now, the Supreme Court has no obligation to follow the popular will. It is charged with safeguarding the Constitution. But it is hard for any disinterested observer to have any faith in what the right-wing justices are doing. They are not acting very conservatively in overturning an abortion ruling (Roe v. Wade) that is 49 years old and a New York state gun-control statute that is 109 years old. In both cases, the justices rely on dubious readings of legal history that have been challenged by many scholars to overturn what had been settled law.Conservatives can plausibly argue that liberal justices invented a constitutional right to abortion, but how is that different from what conservative justices have done in inventing an individual right to carry guns that is also nowhere to be found in the Constitution? The Supreme Court did not recognize an individual right to bear arms until 2008 — 217 years after the Second Amendment was enacted expressly to protect “well-regulated” state militia. The Second Amendment hasn’t changed over the centuries, but the composition of the court has.
Now seems like as good a time as any to congratulate Max Boot on getting paid to think and write down his thoughts for a living. Not everyone can be fortunate enough to make money off of their own abject stupidity and willful ignorance.
Boot is complaining about the “undemocratic, unjust system” in which a handful of populous blue states aren’t allowed to dictate how the entire country should live. And for the Supreme Court to not be beholden to the whims and emotions of the public is actually a good thing. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
Also, the Supreme Court overturning “settled law” is not unprecedented. After all, Dred Scott was settled law, too, once, until the Supreme Court overturned it. Does Max think the Court should’ve left that “settled law” stand?
Also also, what the hell is this BS about an individual right to bear arms being “nowhere in the Constitution”? Has Max Boot read the Constitution lately? Because, like, the right is, like, right there. It’s literally right there in the Second Amendment.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
It's literally in the constitution.
— Frank (@richardrahl1086) June 28, 2022
It literally is.
It's one paragraph. It's only like 29 words or something like that. The second half of the paragraph specifically protects an individual's rights to own firearms. It's been decided 3 times now at least in the supreme court
— Josh (@fowl_ginger) June 28, 2022
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Seems pretty straightforward to us. Then again, we’re not Washington Post columnists, so.
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be allowed" https://t.co/UC4mYm4o0i
— jimtreacher.substack.com (@jtLOL) June 28, 2022
Why is the fact that one is written into the constitution and the other is not so hard to understand?
— Pags 🇺🇸 (@joepapagno) June 28, 2022
It’s not hard to understand if you’re an intellectually honest person. Which is why Max is having such a difficult time making sense of it.
If you study the history of the right it is IMPOSSIBLE to rationally conclude 2A does not protect an inherent, individual right. Impossible. It takes willful ignorance to conclude otherwise.
— colovion (@Colovion) June 28, 2022
Well, Max Boot’s cup of willful ignorance runneth over.
To change your comments display name, click here.