Standing Guard | On Judging The Second Amendment

by
posted on February 18, 2020
waynestandguard.jpg (1)

As the Democratic Party’s primaries play out and we move toward a presidential election in November, it’s worth considering the many successes President Donald J. Trump and the U.S. Senate, under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), have had nominating and appointing judges who know it’s their job to interpret the U.S. Constitution and the law, not to behave as legislators with lifetime appointments.

Trump nominated, and the U.S. Senate confirmed, two U.S. Supreme Court justices—Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Both have pro-freedom Second Amendment records. As this was being written, the Trump administration nominated and the U.S. Senate confirmed 187 judges to the federal bench. This includes 50 judges to the federal circuit courts. This is more than twice the rate we saw under President Barack Obama—he appointed 55 circuit judges over his eight years in office. This is actually the second fastest confirmation pace of any U.S. president [President Jimmy Carter (D) was a little faster], and the fastest confirmation pace ever for federal appellate judges.

Interestingly, one reason for the faster pace is former Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had, in 2013, opted to end the filibuster for lower-court judges. Another reason is that, from day one, the Trump administration has made it a priority to fill vacancies in the courts.

To put this into perspective, realize that when President Trump raised his right hand to uphold the U.S. Constitution on Jan. 20, 2017, Democratic appointees then held majorities on nine of the 13 circuit courts, but by 2019, Trump’s appointments had flipped three of those appellate courts: the Second Circuit, Third and Eleventh Circuits, according to Judiciary Tracker. Thanks to recent U.S. Senate confirmations, even the Ninth Circuit is now closely divided with 16 Democratic appointees and 13 Republican appointees—in January 2017, this court had 18 Democratic appointees and seven Republican appointees.

When the media elites report this trend, they mostly act as if the courts should be viewed as some type of super legislatures. They lament that the Left’s ability to get some judge, or a group of them, on a circuit court, to rewrite the law to their liking is being aggressively pushed back. As the media pushes this narrative, they never admit that this desire is actually anti-democratic, as it is usurping the role of democratically elected officials; instead, they pretend that the judges they agree with politically are only interpreting the law or the U.S. Constitution.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media hates that Trump’s pro-Constitution appointees are turning the courts back into courts, as in bodies that interpret instead of write law. This is a big deal for those who cherish their Second Amendment freedoms, as the Second Amendment clearly says what it means—that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”—and means what it says.

A second Trump administration could continue this trend toward more protections for Second Amendment rights, and thereby do a lot to protect American freedom for a generation. If, however, one of these current candidates now seeking the Democratic nomination for president wins—given their public views on the Second Amendment—they’d surely begin nominating judges who would work to overturn Heller v. D.C. (2008), the decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. If they succeed in that venture—anyone who reads the minority opinions in Heller or McDonald (2010) will clearly see that the progressive justices on the high court want to overturn Heller—then they’ll all but erase the Second Amendment from our U.S. Bill of Rights.

Even outside of this ongoing and fundamental fight over the original meaning of our rights, the lower courts have disagreed on a lot of Second Amendment questions since Heller. For this reason quite a few constitutional scholars have been surprised by the U.S. Supreme Court’s reluctance to step in and further define what the Second Amendment protects from infringement.

As I write this, the U.S. Supreme Court is writing an opinion for its first Second Amendment case since 2010—the case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. City of New York. It is not possible to say how this court will rule, but it is clear that the make-up the high court is of fundamental importance to the future of our freedom.

Latest

18th century British soldiers and Americans
18th century British soldiers and Americans

Rewriting History To Undermine SCOTUS

One of the latest tactics of gun controllers is attempting to convince Americans that firearms ownership is somehow a recent phenomenon. This is provably untrue.

If Only Kamala Harris Knew Something About Guns

Some of the loudest voices seeking to restrict our freedoms are, in fact, the most ignorant. One of these voices happens to also be the vice president of the United States.

Mainstream Media Blames Crime on Recent SCOTUS Decision

Some in the mainstream media seem to be insinuating that recent crimes are somehow the result of a recent Supreme Court decision.

NRA Releases Statement on Rahimi Decision

Today, in United States v. Rahimi, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal prohibition on firearms possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders.

A Declaration of Independence From Joe Biden

It is incumbent upon an electorate to decline to reelect a president who has failed in his civic responsibilities.

Murder Capital USA

Those aligned with Biden’s policies have failed in their basic duty to keep Americans safe. This is painfully evident in our nation’s capital.



Get the best of America's 1st Freedom delivered to your inbox.