Each of us is judged by a standard of care defined as duty owed to others that a person of reasonable mind would do (or not do) under same or similar circumstances. Thus, if I run a stop sign and crash into another vehicle causing harm to its occupants, I am liable for damages inflicted, including pain and suffering.
Consider the context of the U.S. Supreme Court. Can its decisions be judged by a reasonable-mind standard that governs the Rest of Us? In particular, was the court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller—which overturned its own precedence by establishing an individual right to keep and bear arms—a tortious act, in that the buying and use of guns was a foreseeable consequence of the ruling?
Of course, the Supreme Court itself is immune from prosecution (under the doctrine of sovereign immunity). However, I submit that morality is on trial, as well as common sense. Any moderately sentient individual, whether or not a member of the highest bench, could appreciate that an interpretation of the Second Amendment that held for an individual—rather than collective (as in state)—right to own and use weapons would foreseeably lead to gun proliferation and gun-related deaths.
Consider this chart from The Guardian. It depicts in graphical format 1,052 mass shootings in the 1,066 days since Sandy Hook, where 26 people, including 20 children, were shot and killed by a single gunman. (A mass shooting is defined as four or more persons shot in the same incident.)
Yesterday in San Bernadino, three individuals with lots of guns and ammunition shot and killed 14 people and wounded nearly two dozen others.
We will scratch our heads in wonder. Why did this happen? Indeed, why do any people die in America by guns?
We could start with the Supreme Court. It could have ruled otherwise, upholding a century’s old tradition of confining gun ownership to the state’s collective responsibility for the security of a “free state.”
There’s blood on the Supremes’ hands.