From Justice Stevens' dissent: "It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection."
The basis for the dissent was that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg believed, out of deference to federalism, that the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the issue of whether state law provided for such a right, but instead should have deferred to the federal district court or certified the question to the state Supreme Court.
Moreover, the Constitution is emphatically not "a bit of old parchment." For shame.
Tomorrow's progress isn't dependent the Constitution. What we want for our future does not rely on the permissions of what came before it.
It isn't five judges. It isn't a bit of old parchment. Your dishonesty is unbecoming.
We shouldn't give up on progress because of how five judges read a bit of old parchment. I'm talking about societal aims, and of course, they're just my opinion.
We should want to decrease crime, not just shoot at it. That's not just education, drug rehab, it's a solid police presence and community engagement. A world where the top earning 10% still interact with the bottom earning 10%. We keep moving in the wrong direction.