Gun rights are secure - for now
Inter Lake editorial
The profound influence and power of the U.S. Supreme Court has become increasingly apparent with recent rulings, such as Thursday's ruling on gun regulation.
And that shines a spotlight on the obvious importance of future court appointments, and who gets to make those appointments after the presidential election in November.
Last week's 5-4 ruling on District of Columbia vs. Heller finally dispelled the supposed ambiguity of the Second Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia spelled out the obvious in crystal clear terms:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home."
The Bill of Rights is obviously, thematically written for the rights of U.S. citizens, individuals. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with the "rights" of a standing, government-sanctioned militia, nor does it having anything to do with the District of Columbia's "right" to impose a complete prohibition on the possession of firearms.
Scalia wrote that the amendment's prefatory militia clause is subordinate to the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer contends the scope of the right is limited to certain military purposes and that the D.C. ban on firearms is acceptable because of legitimate objectives.
Those types of flimsy, pliable judicial "tests" that allow for judicial activism are scary, making it possible for current and future justices to legislate from the bench.
Recent high-profile rulings have been narrowly split, with Justice Anthony Kennedy often being the swing vote. What if Kennedy wasn't on the court with the Heller ruling, but someone else of Breyer's mind set?
Americans could now find their right to own a gun at risk, subject to the whims of a city council or a state Legislature, or even worse, the federal government. What a monumental, fundamental change that would be, especially here in Montana.
But Kennedy being a swing vote doesn't always vote with the conservatives. What if Kennedy wasn't around for the recent 5-4 decision that created U.S. constitutional rights for "unlawful enemy combatants." Creating a right for enemies that never existed before, now that is certainly legislating from the bench.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court didn't take a right from U.S. citizens this week, but they could next term, or the term after that.
The court is obviously driven by its members' respective political views, most importantly in the way they each view the powers of government, individual rights, and judicial supremacy.
If for no other reason than the likelihood of Supreme Court justice appointments being made in the next few years, the election of the next president will be extremely important. Consider carefully what kind of country you want.