Some conservatives are hailing this week’s Supreme Court decisions as a victory for conservatives. Inasmuch as the contours of the cases before the Supreme Court have moved so far left and that the lower courts are so extreme, yes, we did win some partial victories. But don’t think for a minute we suddenly have a high court that believes in the Constitution. In fact, there are only three justices who believe in science or the very natural law that defines fundamental rights, which we will celebrate on July 4 next week.
The Supreme Court, once again, has contorted fundamental rights beyond belief. When juxtaposing one decision with another case of inaction, it is clear that six members of the Supreme Court believe there is a fundamental right to force states to change biology and recognize birth certificates of “same-sex couples” as if both parents physically conceived the child. At the same time, gun owners cannot force states to abide by the most inalienable right of self-defense enshrined in the Constitution, even nine years after the Heller decision. It further demonstrates why the courts are irremediably broken – a one-way street and a dead end for conservatives.
Supreme Court ignores lower court breaking of Second Amendment
Over the past few years, we have chronicled a pattern developing in the lower courts on the Second Amendment since the Heller decision. Not that we needed the Supreme Court to affirm the right to self-defense, which predated the Constitution, but the Heller majority made it clear that the right to bear arms is complete and that it is not subject to an “interest balancing test” by state governments.
Yet, unlike in the aftermath of Obergefell, when states just completely capitulated on gay marriage, Heller did not result in the clear right to bear arms, even though guns are mentioned in the Constitution and marriage is not. Blue states continued to ban an array of common firearms, magazine capacities, and most importantly, the right to carry any firearm under any circumstance on one’s person. The Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit Courts have all upheld either the “assault weapons bans,” the ban on carrying, or both.
And the Supreme Court has refused to take up these cases. Although one cannot always read too much into the Supreme Court’s decision not to grant an appeal on a major case, there is no other way to interpret the court’s endless indifference to the slaughtering of Heller and the most basic right. It takes four justices to grant certiorari, but clearly Chief Justice Roberts has refused to be that fourth vote over and over again. Justices Thomas and Scalia have consistently called out the other justices for not granting cert to appeals when lower courts clearly disregard Heller. In one instance, Alito did as well.
Today, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Peruta v. California, where the Ninth Circuit upheld the state’s ban on carrying any and all firearms, a clear violation of the most unambiguously crafted right. Justice Thomas dissented from the denial of cert, as he has done in the past, and was joined by Justice Gorsuch. He called the Ninth Circuit’s ruling “indefensible”:
As we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” […]
The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.
Thomas goes on to note that the main idea behind the right to carry a firearm is the inalienable right to self-defense, which naturally applies most often outside one’s home. As Sam Adams, the founding father of the American Revolution, said, “[A]mong the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Article I of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, by which the Declaration of Independence was inspired, lists the rights to “defending their lives and liberties” as one of the inalienable rights we celebrate this coming week.
Justice Thomas laments that “the Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”
In closing, he rebuked the other members of the court for indifference to fundamental rights that affect people’s security while they are protected by armed guards:
For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.
This decision accelerates the urgency for Republicans to push right-to-carry legislation, yet they will likely remain silent.
Courts become God and remake human sexuality
So, while the courts ignore the most foundational and plainly written right in the Constitution, which rights do they prioritize? The right to immigrate, the right to a gay marriage, the right to 30 days of early voting, etc. – in other words, rights that don’t exist. But this week the court took its obsession with gay marriage to a new level.
Although the court appears reluctant to defend its own majority opinion — on an incontrovertible right — from the lower courts, it jumped with alacrity to overturn the Arkansas Supreme Court, which upheld the state’s birth certificates, natural law, our core history and traditions … oh … and basic biology.
Not content with their “legal victory” in forcing states to redefine marriage, the far Left has gotten the Supreme Court to redefine biology.
In Pavan v. Smith, the Supreme Court said that lesbian couples in which one woman is impregnated through artificial insemination are not only entitled to have both their names on the child’s birth certificate, the certificate must be as if the “husband” of the duo is the actual biological “father” of the child.
As is the case with all births from artificial insemination, Arkansas law recognizes the non-biological father on the birth certificate, governed by a different process from that for biological birth certificates. The state fully complied with the insane Obergefell decision and recognized same-sex couples and indeed placed the second “mother” on the birth certificate through the non-biological process. But the plaintiffs wanted them to be treated as identical to biological parents! This defies common sense. As Justice Gorsuch put it in his dissent, a state has an interest in preserving the integrity of biological birth certificates, “ensuring government officials can identify public health trends and helping individuals determine their biological lineage, citizenship, or susceptibility to genetic disorders.”
Yet, six justices, including John Roberts, ruled that Obergefell demands that lesbian couples be treated the same as couples who could actually procreate and that they must be issued birth certificates as if they were the biological parents. Thus, they are decreeing that states must lie about biology and act as if two women or two men can procreate.
So why can’t they procreate? Are the courts now going to sue God for violating Obergefell and not changing biology to comport with the capricious legal gymnastics of the court?
This demonstrates how far this decrepit legal system will go to promote the homosexual agenda, to the point that they will alter the most immutable laws of nature to comport with their political beliefs.
The juxtaposition of the views of these six justices towards gun rights with their views on bending biology for homosexual couples is earth-shattering. They take the most foundational self-evident truth of self-defense, codified in plain language in the Constitution, and toss it in the trash. Then they create a right never addressed in the Constitution, which is the most antithetical idea imaginable to the self-evident truths of nature and nature’s God – the source and foundation of inalienable rights we celebrate this time of year – and take it a step further to redefine human sexuality.
While some conservatives are celebrating the fact that the Supreme Court agreed to take up the Masterpiece case, wherein a Christian baker was forced to perform a service for a homosexual wedding, I wouldn’t be too confident in Roberts and Kennedy. Given that they are willing to erase the most immutable laws of nature to placate the sexual identity lobby, what’s some poor Christian baker in the scheme of things?
The courts are irremediably broken and need to be reformed.
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.