On June 25th, 2015, the majority of Supreme Court Justices, lead by Chief Justice Roberts, ruled that what the law says does not matter. What matters is what the Justices want the law to say.
This is an important break down in the rule of law. We have seen it before from the Supreme Court, particularly from the Warren Court, and during the Roosevelt revolution of the 1930's and on. There seemed to be a brief period in the early 2000s when the Court might actually follow the law of the land. This was labelled by the left as a "radically conservative court" but it was merely a slight tendency to follow law and truth, instead of rubber stamping "progressive" ideology.
The decision sheds light on why the Court has not accepted any direct Second Amendment cases since McDonald. Both sides are afraid that a wavering Justice, typically Justice Kennedy, will vote against them. The Constitutional side does not want a Supreme Court ruling that guts Heller and McDonald; the "progressive" side does not want a ruling that confirms and expands them. It is even possible that a Justice does not want to have to yield to pressure from the Obama Administration, so avoiding a case becomes the easier choice.
It is obvious that the Court, similar to what happened in Venezuela, has been turned to the side of the administration. Decisions that are in direct opposition to the law are found for the administration when enough pressure is brought to bear. The Court explicitly ruled that it had to find the law Constitutional to avoid the law becoming unworkable. In other words, they subverted the rule of law in order to support the current administration.
The only hope for a return to Constitutional restraints is an end to the current administration. That hope presupposes that whatever pressure has been brought will cease when this administration ends.
It is not a hope that a future can be built upon. After the SCOTUSCare decision, I have no real belief that we can depend on the Supreme Court to protect Second Amendment rights. The Obama administration is in full attack mode against the Second Amendment. It will bring whatever pressure it can against the Justices to insure that they rule the way that it wishes, in any Second Amendment case.
All is not lost.
The Supreme Court failed to protect the Second Amendment from 1935 through 2005. It only started to protect the Second Amendment because Second Amendment activists organized and won legislative battles, educated greater and greater numbers of the public, and pushed the Court to rule properly. That dynamic has not changed, but the Supreme Court has now shown that it cannot be relied on to follow the rule of law while this administration has all the power of the Government at its disposal.
Second Amendment activists will have to use their existing organizations, communications ability, and all their remaining protections under the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to hold on to the restoration of freedoms that have been won in the last 20 years. Legislatively, they may be able to do more.
They can win back, in State and Federal legislatures, what the Courts are refusing to protect. The Obama administration will not be in power forever. There will be a backlash. It may happen that a Justice or Justices on the Supreme Court will find the ability to act ethically after the abuses of this administration end.
But, for the next year and a half, do not expect the Supreme Court to protect Second Amendment rights. Second Amendment supporters should be glad that the Court has not taken important Second Amendment cases. If my analysis is correct, the next year and a half is a very dangerous time for the Second Amendment to be heard in the Supreme Court.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch