late wrote:The Bruen decision invalidated dozens of state and federal laws, ...
As a Pro-Constitutional conservative, I actually agree with you... or partially agree with you.
But there are several points to bring up.
First, it's harder to have sympathy when the courts are interfering to give people individual rights.
I mean, yes, the courts are interfering, but they are interfering to prevent the state's interference in an individual's choice and rights. (It does remind one a bit of how in older times the Southern states were complaining about the federal government's interference in Slavery)
Remember, the Left-leaning courts tried to do this with abortion and numerous other issues. Precedent has been set.
Second, this "can of worms" was opened up when the Supreme Court begin deciding that the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to Constitution) applied against the states. That set a precedent.
Thirdly, I notice how every time the Left complains about something on the Right, it seems it is actually something the Left is even more guilty of. Could this be a case of (psychological) projection? Just blame the other side of everything in the hope that it will distract people from seeing those same type of faults on your side.
I see the media repeatedly criticising the Conservatives for not following principles. But the thing is, a much greater share of those on the Left don't have these principles! So it seems if the Left is going to play "dirty" then Conservatives are going to be fighting with one hand tied behind their back, if they try to be honourable and stick ardently to their principles. Hardly a fair fight, is it?
You talk about "Rule of Law". Well there are certainly all sorts of examples of Democrat-appointed judges departing from rule of law, often in ridiculously absurd ways. I don't think I even need to point to any specific instance, it's commonplace. I've posted many threads about it in this forum. Of course the mainstream media doesn't focus the public's attention on these cases, or frames the cases in such a way that the problems are not highlighted.
I could write much more about each of these points, but this just touches on the different issues connected to this.
Last, I noticed in your post how you made very little reference to what the case was actually about. It seemed as if you did not actually want to argue over the details of the case, to debate whether that decision truly was not following "rule of law". Instead you just wanted to accuse the other side of not following rule of law, which was what nearly all of your post says.
It seems a bit disingenuous to spend so much time accusing the other side of something, with so little explaining why you think they are arguably guilty of doing that, or inviting any debate about that.
To use a comparison, it would be like if I accused Democrats of "fascism" and trying to seize power because of the cases against Trump, but didn't provide any explanation whatsoever about what those cases were about or why exactly I believed those cases were not following the true principle of rule of law.
That wouldn't be honestly setting the foundation to have a real discussion.