College Republican Federation of Virginia

The recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down D.C.’s handgun ban has revealed that, in addition to economics, liberals are genetically incapable of understanding Constitutional issues.   I say genetically incapable because, now matter how many ways the argument is phrased, no matter how simply and carefully the logic is presented, no matter how many historical facts are offered, liberals still cannot comprehend basic Constitutional principles. 

This indicates that they must be incapable of understanding, rather than simply wrong.  As a Conservative, I don’t have any sympathy for them of course, however, I do think that the Special Olympics should add a forensics competition.  All joking aside, the Court’s decision has sent the Left into a hissy fit, screaming about how this will have horrible effects on DC (which was rivaling Disneyland in the latest magic-and-wonder rankings).  However, showcasing why liberals are now incapable of understanding Constitutional ideas, some leftists are calling the Court’s decision judicial activism.

 This argument, debuting here and here in the WaPo, will no doubt be featured in November.  It goes something like this: conservative justices are essentially no different than their liberal colleagues in that their judicial zeitgeist is determined by political ideology.  This influence means that their rulings are going to reflect that ideology.  This is essentially a relativist argument (surprise, surprise) that seeks to paint conservative calls for judicial restraint as nothing more than cynical, hypocritical attempts to swing the activist tendencies of the Court to the right.

The problem with it, it’s wrong.  Debunking ridiculous left wing re-interpretations of Constitutional ideas isn’t judicial activism.  In fact, it’s the exact opposite.  Judicial activism is when the Court decides to “interpret” things into the Constitution that aren’t there or water down things that are (Warren’s infamous penumbras come to mind).  The Court’s long overdue affirmation of Americans’ Second Amendment rights is not the action of an activist Court, rather it is the action of a Court led by Justices with the courage to tell the Left that it’s wrong.

This is the action of a Court that, unlike the Court of the New Deal era, is unafraid of populist politicians with their neo-socialist ideas and nanny-state policies.  It is the action of a Court that will, finally, have the guts to tell the Left that people don’t need to be regulated like political livestock.  This is a Court which should be heralded.  And strengthened.