Rev. Michael Pfleger Criticizes The Supreme Court – Using the Same Tactics That Were Used Against Obama

Published by the LearnAboutGuns.com Author on July 7, 2008 at 12:01 am
LearnAboutGuns.com > Gun Related News > Rev. Michael Pfleger Criticizes The Supreme Court – Using the Same Tactics That Were Used Against Obama

Reverend Michael Pfleger  stated “Obviously, the Supreme Court in their ivory tower is really disconnected . . . They’re so disconnected that they cannot hear the cries of parents who are burying their children.This disappoints me for a variety of reasons, as discussed below:

Rev. Michael Pfleger is resorting to the same personal attacks against the Supreme Court that were used against Obama
On the heels of the Supreme Court ruling that held gun ownership for self defense to be a fundamental and individual right, St. Sabina’s Reverend Michael Pfleger launched a verbal attack upon the United States’ highest court.  By calling the Supreme Court justices disconnected and saying that they reside in ivory towers, Pfleger is stooping to the same level as those who leveled similar attacks against Barack Obama.  There is simply no need and no benefit for a religious leader to resort to personal attacks, especially when he should be fostering polite and civil debate over contentious social issues.  While I have (sadly) come to expect this type of rhetoric from television pundits, I firmly believe that a man of God should not stoop to this level and insult the highest court in the country.

Rev. Michael Pfleger is not qualified to interpret the constitution or determine the meaning of the second amendment
I have noticed a trend of people who, by virtue of their celebrity, seem to feel that they are qualified to tell the Supreme Court that it is wrong on a matter of law.  To me, as a 3rd year law student, that is the pinnacle of arrogance.   In this case, Michael Pfleger has decide to tell the Supreme Court that it erred in interpreting the constitution, despite his lack of legal education or experience with constitutional law.  I am not saying that Pfleger isn’t entitled to his opinion on this or any other matter, but rather that he should recognize that he is not a lawyer, judge, or Supreme Court justice.  He should recognize that his area of expertise (or even competence) is not constitutional law, but is instead religious matters.  Just as I, a soon-to-be lawyer, wouldn’t try to pass myself off as an expert on the interpretation of scripture, Rev. Pfleger might do well to avoid critiquing the Supreme Court’s interpretation of our nation’s constitution.

Tags for this article: , , , , , , , , , , ,