Re. 2nd amendment. Progressives complain that the SCOTUS is guilty of judicial activism. Are they right?

Erwin Chemerinsky, who is the dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, argues for the LA Times that the Supreme Court’s conservative justices are guilty of judicial activism. This while conservatives often deplore such activism; one should not legislate from the bench. But that’s exactly what the SCOTUS has done this time, according to the author at least.

Chemerinsky’s argument is simple: since the Supreme Court did never before acknowledge an individual right to keep and bear arms, today’s court is activist.

But is it that simple?

From a conservative point of view, the case is far more nuanced… and simple at the same time; the laws were changed, the interpretation changed, etc. by progressives. For more than a century or so, the common believe was that the second amendment guaranteed before mentioned individual rights. America’s Founding Fathers did not believe that only members of a militia could have guns; for them, it was an individual right.

But then progressives took over the nation’s highest court. These progressives were more than willing to break with the traditional, social and political interpretation. Before them, no court ever dealt with this question, simply because it was not up for debate; there was unanimity about it.

But progressives changed all that. And now they pretend that the progressive, at that time radical, interpretation is actually the conservative one. To put it differently, they are mimicking Big Brother; twisting and turning so much, that words lose their meaning.

Be sure to read Chuck Norton’s post on this. He exposes the thinking and rhetoric of America’s progressives quite well:

 So what is it that possesses people to quite frankly lie through their teeth about a ruling that anyone can plainly look up, read, and understand? It is testimony that for too many people in power, the ends justifies the means and if lying to students, abandoning the public trust given to you and lying about easily proven history to enforce your ideological views is what is needed, than so be it.