Something unusual happened in America this week; the Supreme Court made a series of sensible decisions that millions of Americans find refreshing.
On Tuesday, in a case involving two families from Maine, the court ruled that public money could indeed be spent providing a religious education.
As every American school child used to know, the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing any particular religion. However, in a 6-3 ruling, the justices decided that permitting public money to go to a religious school did not constitute any such endorsement.
On Thursday things got even more interesting. In New York, officials had introduced a permit-scheme for anyone wanting to carry guns outside their home. In doing so, these officials had decided to give themselves broad authority to deny permits for almost any reason. This, too, the Court ruled was not on.
The Second Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In his ruling on the New York case, Judge Clarence Thomas wrote “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need”.
All this proved a little too much for President Biden, who took to twitter to complain about it:
Then came the biggest ruling of the lot yesterday when the Supreme Court ruled on Dobbs Vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The justices found in favor of Mississippi’s right to enact pro-life legislation. They sided with the argument that such decisions should be returned to each state. Mr. President didn't approve of that either:
We are so used to having a left-leaning Court that the idea that the Court might make any of these decisions seems odd. To have three rulings in a single week is extraordinary.
The implications of this week go far beyond the merits of these individual cases.
For decades, leftist lawyers in America have used the courts to advance their agenda. And often, it has to be said, the Supreme Court helped them along the way. Federal power was significantly, and deliberately, extended by Chief Justice Earl Warren, for example.
Now that the Court has a more balanced range of justices sitting on the bench, we are starting to see some of the judicial and federal aggrandizement of the past half century or so being reverse. And about time, too.
Americans are never going to agree on everything. The political priorities and values of folk in Massachusetts, Minnesota or Mississippi are never going to be precisely aligned. So why not let states do more things differently?
When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they expected that the Supreme Court would rule on the basis of what the law said, not rule on the basis of what they would like the law to say. The recent rise of judicial activism has seen this idea of the Court's role abandoned, and in doing so, it has undermined the Constitution, handed power to federal bureaucrats and done a great deal to poison American politics.
A truly conservative Court would recognize this and undo the damage by returning to the more minimalist, restrained role that the Founders envisaged for the Supreme Court. Less Ruth Ginsburg, more James Madison, please.
Have a great weekend!
Warm regards,
Douglas Carswell
President & CEO
Read our stance on the Mississippi ACLU's lawsuit against the state regarding public funding for private school education.
Watch this video - Shad White, Mississippi's State Auditor, gives insight on the problem of crime in the Magnolia State
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.
