Rulings restored order
Despite the hair-on-fire reaction by some here in Connecticut and elsewhere, the four major Supreme Court decisions are a much-needed reversal of the “make it up as we go along” efforts of various iterations of the court over the last three generations. Contrary to what Progressives think, Democracy was served very well in four major decisions, and the power of the federal and state governments was – at least in part — curtailed.
The Bruen decision, knocking down New York’s Conceal Carry Laws, was a win for the traditional understanding of the Second Amendment that goes back to the beginning of the nation. The State of New York was using licensing restrictions to make determinations as to who gets its permission to carry. The majority decision is best described by Justice Clarence Thomas who said, “State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court’s 6-3 majority.
Here the intent of the amendment as traditionally interpreted was important as Progressive states look to make ownership more bureaucratically onerous.
Religious liberty – the right to practice one’s religion, not just worship in a building – was upheld in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. This is the case of the Washington State football coach who prayed on the 50-yard line after games on his own. His prayers were joined by players and fans with the school district worried it violated the Separation Clause. He was fired when he refused to stop.
Unfortunately, that clause over the last 60 years or so has moved toward a “freedom from religion,” rather than “freedom of religion,” with groups trying to marginalize religious people from the public square.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority a synopsis of the erroneous standard of the last three generations: “Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. And the only meaningful justification the government offered for its reprisal rested on a mistaken view that it had a duty to ferret out and suppress.”
Once again, freedom, rather than the diktat of a government agency was given its due.
In West Virginia v. EPA, the encroachment of agencies becoming a fourth branch of government with legislative power was staunched and will have an effect going forward. This had to do with the EPA making rules regarding the Clean Air Act by fiat. The agency had its wings clipped. The majority decision summed up the longstanding problem: The case “refers to an identifiable body of law that has developed over a series of significant cases all addressing a particular and recurring problem: agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.”
Congress must now authorize the powers of the agencies and oversee in an authentic way the rules it puts out as being under its intended utility. That is a blow for Constitutional order and a check against unfettered bureaucracy.
In the most controversial decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, all that need be said is Constitutional order was further rectified with this decision. All that need be said is Justice Anthony Alito’s summary of the Roe v. Wade decision. The case was taken from the states where it rightfully belonged.
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”
We have all won under these decisions.