Originalism and Judicial Decadence
The article critiques the U.S. Supreme Court's approach to originalism, specifically regarding Second Amendment cases involving AR-15 rifles. The author argues that the Court is moving toward an interpretation that lacks constitutional basis, potentially undermining state-level public safety regulations.
Why it matters
This analysis addresses the tension between judicial philosophy and democratic control over firearm regulation in the United States.
Originalism has been an imperfect but salutary method of constitutional interpretation, an effective means, in many cases, of restraining judicial power. Nevertheless, judges face temptations to abuse this power. Nowhere is originalism’s susceptibility to abuse more evident than in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. We are now at a watershed for that provision: at its June 29 conference, the Supreme Court consolidated and granted review to two nation-defining cases for its next term. Viramontes v. Cook County (from the Seventh Circuit), consolidated with Grant v. Higgins (from the Second Circuit), will be argued and decided by next June on the following issue, with vast implications for public safety: “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.”
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in