‘Supreme Court lawyer’ says it would be ‘weird’ for the high court to leave abortion up to states ‘after it just imposed a constitutional right to concealed carry of firearms’

Neal Katyal, who describes himself as a “Supreme Court lawyer,” tweeted that it would “be very weird if [the] Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week, saying it should be left to the States to decide, right after it just imposed a constitutional right to concealed carry of firearms, saying it cannot be left to the States to decide.”

Katyal is a law professor and author, has argued cases before the Supreme Court, and has previously served as acting solicitor general of the U.S.

In a gun-related ruling released on Thursday, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion, “Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.”

A leaked Supreme Court draft majority opinion has indicated that the high court is poised to strike down Roe v. Wade, a move that would enable states to ban abortions. Supreme Court watchers have been awaiting the release of the official ruling, to find out if it is in line with the leaked draft.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives,” the leaked draft opinion reads.

In response to Katyal’s comments, numerous commenters pointed out that while the Constitution includes the right to bear arms, it says zilch about abortion.

“The right to bear arms is in the Constitution. The right to an abortion is not. So this might explain the weirdness,” Dinesh D’Souza tweeted.

“No, because the the right to keep and bear arms is actually in the Constitution. Abortion is not – which is the point,” Kurt Schlichter tweeted.

“It’s only weird, my friend, if one disregards (a) the existence in the Constitution of a right to keep and bear arms and (b) the non-existence in that text of a right to elective abortion,” law professor Rick Garnett tweeted.

“I adore you Rick, and think we can disagree about this reasonably. There is no right to concealed carrying of firearms in the text of the Second Amendment. Even guns in the home is not in the text, let alone concealed carrying. And if we are just going by the text, there is … of course no right to privacy in that text; or right to travel,” Katyal responded across a series of two tweets.

View original article here Source