If there was any lingering doubt regarding the intentions of most Supreme Court justices—whether they prioritize political agendas over American constitutional rights—that doubt evaporated with the recent leak following the weekly release of the High Court’s Order List.
A week after failing to defend minors’ free speech rights in Massachusetts, the Supreme Court opted not to take on two related cases concerning the Second Amendment. According to reports from federalist Jordan Boyd, one case challenged Maryland’s 2013 law that bans the possession of AR-15s, while the other contested Rhode Island’s 2022 law that criminalizes owning a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
In both instances, the plaintiffs sought relief from the Supreme Court after unfavorable rulings in lower federal courts.
Despite the significant infringement on the petitioners’ Second Amendment rights, **at least four justices must** agree to hear a case before it is brought before the entire court.
On the surface, the decision to dismiss the case is alarming. However, a deeper examination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion sheds light on the bias within the court regarding the Maryland case, intensifying the majority’s decision.
Kavanaugh stated, “The denial of the certificate does not imply that the court agrees with the lower court’s ruling or that the matter lacks merit for review.” Yet, while other circuit courts have taken action, the High Court effectively expressed disinterest in addressing the “AR-15 issue” this year.
Kavanaugh remarked, “The AR-15 matter was recently adjudicated by the First Circuit and is under consideration by several other appellate courts. Findings from those courts should inform this court’s eventual decision regarding the AR-15 issue.” He added, “I believe additional petitions for certiorari will be presented, and this court should urgently address the AR-15 issue in the next term.”
Reflect on the absurdity of Kavanaugh’s reasoning. While he appears sympathetic to the plaintiffs, labeling the Fourth Circuit’s decision as “suspect,” he erroneously suggests it is acceptable for Maryland to temporarily infringe on their Second Amendment rights. Perhaps we should just wait and see if it resurfaces in the near future.
In a disheartening observation, it’s no surprise that Justice Clarence Thomas opposed the majority’s decision, stating, “The Constitution allows Americans, not the government, to decide which weapons are necessary for their self-defense.”
It seems the majority of the High Court is content to delay actions that would protect American constitutional rights while they swiftly tackle issues concerning illegal aliens facing deportation.
For instance, during the early hours of Easter Weekend, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 order to temporarily halt President Trump’s use of alien enemy laws to deport dangerous Venezuelan gang members from the United States. The court’s interference in administrative authority drew backlash from Thomas and Alito, with Alito criticizing the majority’s actions as “legally questionable and unprecedented.”
A 7-2 majority, including Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett, has perpetuated a political agenda that undermines the administration’s efforts to deport these gang members. Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho recently criticized the Supreme Court for this “disrespect.”
Justice’s apparent eagerness to fulfill requests from illegal foreign counsel, while simultaneously neglecting the rights of American citizens under the First and Second Amendments, presents a troubling image. It’s particularly concerning how the Supreme Court has failed to address the judicial overreach of lower courts affecting the 77 million Americans who supported Trump in the last election.
Due to the missteps by Roberts and his colleagues, which they see as attempts to uphold what they consider “legitimate” actions of the High Court, their actions and rhetoric contribute to a degradation of its credibility. The Supreme Court appears more inclined to engage in political maneuvering than to diligently uphold the Constitution, resulting in a loss of trust among the American populace.
The longer justices prioritize political agendas over their constitutional responsibilities, the clearer the reality becomes.
Sean Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of Mary Washington University. Previously, he served as a state content writer for the National Treaty action, with his work featured in outlets like RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @shawnfleetwood.
Source: thefederalist.com