Ketanji Brown Jackson Really Worried Judges Might Actually Apply Second Amendment In Gun Cases
This story raises questions about governance, accountability, and American values.
The coverage treats Justice Jackson’s dissent as a principled warning about “gun violence,” but it sidesteps the core issue: what judges are supposed to do when a law collides with the Constitution. If applying the Second Amendment means more laws get struck down, that is not judicial activism. That is the system working as designed.
New Republican Times Editorial Board
Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson complained in a dissent released Thursday that the Supreme Court applying the Second Amendment involves throwing out unconstitutional gun laws. The high court [...] The post Ketanji Brown Jackson Really Worried Judges Might Actually Apply Second Amendment In Gun Cases appeared first on The Western Journal .
Original source:
Read at The Western JournalHow We See It
New Republican Times Editorial Board
The coverage treats Justice Jackson’s dissent as a principled warning about “gun violence,” but it sidesteps the core issue: what judges are supposed to do when a law collides with the Constitution. If applying the Second Amendment means more laws get struck down, that is not judicial activism. That is the system working as designed.
What’s missing is the conservative concern that courts are being asked to downgrade a right because it is politically inconvenient. Constitutional rights are not policy preferences, and the Second Amendment is not a carve-out for “good intentions.” When standards shift with public pressure, public trust in the judiciary erodes.
The real test is whether we still believe in rule of law and equal treatment of enumerated rights. If a law is unconstitutional, stability comes from correcting it, not preserving it.
Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.