Judicial activism by conservatives

The high court's 2nd Amendment opinion makes the majority's agenda clear.

By Erwin Chemerinsky
June 27, 2008

» Discuss Article (82 Comments)

The Supreme Court's invalidation of the District of Columbia's handgun ban powerfully shows that the conservative rhetoric about judicial restraint is a lie. In striking down the law, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, joined by the court's four other most conservative justices, is quite activist in pursuing the conservative political agenda of protecting gun owners.

If the terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.

Never before had the Supreme Court found that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns. In fact, in 1939 (and other occasions), the court rejected this view. In effectively overturning these prior decisions, the court both ignored precedent and invalidated a law adopted by a popularly elected government.

What's more, the court's interpretation is questionable. The text of the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous. Its second clause speaks of a right to "keep and bear arms," but its first clause suggests that this right exists because a "well-regulated militia" is essential. There is thus strong reason to believe that the 2nd Amendment only guarantees gun rights for those serving in a militia.

At the very least, one would expect that a high court committed to judicial restraint would have used the 2nd Amendment's ambiguity to defer to the political process and to follow precedent. Yet nowhere in Scalia's opinion was there mention of the need for judicial deference that is so characteristic of his opinions in cases involving other individual liberties.

What then explains the court's decision to strike down the D.C. law? Conservative political ideology. The majority followed prevailing conservative political philosophy and found that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns.

This should not be surprising. The conservative justices regularly jettison judicial restraint when it is at odds with conservative politics. They've done the same thing in cases involving affirmative action and desegregation programs.

The irony is that the same conservative justices who were so eager Thursday to find an individual liberty under the 2nd Amendment are loath to do so when a right of a criminal defendant is at stake or when it is a matter of enforcing the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment. Thursday's decision is a powerful reminder that the conservative justices are activists when it serves their political agenda.

Erwin Chemerinsky is the dean of the UC Irvine School of Law.

Post Comment

Discussion

Discuss Erwin Chemerinsky's Op-Ed.

Comments will close in two days.

1. Tell you what...examine Roe V Wade with the same analysis you give this decision and then lecture me about judicial activism. The leftists are in an uproar about a clearly delineated right of the PEOPLE to bear arms. Poor them. When has the Left EVER been right? (Dictatorship of the proletariat, withering away of the state, yeah right).
Submitted by: abraxas
5:58 AM PDT, Jul 1, 2008

2. reRob:Goodness, you rightists truly frighten me with such fear of analysis. To be so willfully blind to the ambiguity of the 2nd Amendment is so profoundly ignorant that one has to conclude you have devious intent. If the Framer's had meant individual rights, why did they not express that as clearly as in the other 9?Perhaps you are making an honest mistake. It is lazy and meaningless to assert that terms have meaning without attempting to define them byREADING and using a DICTIONARY. You should at least acknowledge that this decision overturns precedent. If you think the Constitution IS the precedent, you obviously don't understand this term
Submitted by: ben
1:56 PM PDT, Jun 30, 2008

3. Analysis, analysis, analysis! Argue and so on. This country was founded with civilian people! They had guns before the constitution, the bill of rights and all was ever written. My point being, the guns were never taken away from the civilians, even after the militia was formed. Civilians have always owned guns, and always will. To try to take away our weapons now which I have, and will always keep till the day I die, would only start a new revolution like noone has ever seen before! Not saying that I would start it, but like the old saying goes- "The day they take my gun is when they pry it from my cold dead hands!"
Submitted by: Marvin
9:15 AM PDT, Jun 30, 2008

Read all 82 comments


OPINION » Covering the uninsured: A cost that pays Editorial: Extending health coverage to the nation's uninsured would be expensive, but it's crucial to containing costs and improving quality. Opinion L.A. poll: What should President Obama's top priority be in talks with Russia? EDITORIALS\|OP-ED\|LETTERS				FROM THE BLOGS Opinion L.A. Opinion L.A. The best in Southern California opinion journalism Poll: President Obama Goes To Russia Sun, Jul 5 2009 11:30:00 PM With the next two days shaping to be crucial in U.S.-Russian diplomacy, we... more Bit Player By Jon Healey Technology The business and culture of our digital lives, from the L.A. Times A big week for copyrights and piracy Thu, Jul 2 2009 7:16:48 PM The sale of The Pirate Bay probably ranks as the week's biggest news for those... more

Email
|
Print
|
Text
|
RSS

Mexico Under Siege

The drug war at our doorstep
Video Q&A | Photos | Interactive map

1.	Police raid at gay club in Texas stirs ugly memories
2.	New York takes legislative gridlock to next level
3.	Climate battle moves to the Senate
4.	Paying for healthcare overhaul may fall unevenly on states
5.	A very special Brand