Donald Trump loves to brag about the fact that he managed to appoint three associate justices to the Supreme Court during his failed presidency. It’s literally the only bright spot in his term in office.
But it appears that Trump’s single “accomplishment” will also turn out to be another miserable failure, based on a decision from the high court on Monday, USA Today reports:
“The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up three challenges to a federal ban on gun ownership for people convicted of nonviolent crimes, disappointing Second Amendment advocates who hoped a more conservative court would begin to chip away at the restriction.
“By not taking the appeals, the nation’s highest court let stand a series of lower court rulings that prohibited people convicted of driving under the influence, making false statements on tax returns and selling counterfeit cassette tapes from owning a gun.”
Particularly galling to gun fetishists will be the fact that Amy Coney Barrett didn’t agree to form a majority with four other conservatives, which many believed she would based on her prior rulings while an appellate court judge:
“Several of the court’s conservatives signaled in recent years that they were interested in revisiting the issue, and it’s not clear why they chose not to do so. Four conservative justices have expressed a desire to address outstanding Second Amendment questions – enough to take a case but one vote short of the five needed to corral a majority. Many expected Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, seated last fall, to provide that fifth vote.”
But she didn’t, and that means that Trump’s hot air about how he was going to cement a conservative majority on the court is nothing but rhetoric. If a right-wing judge like Barrett won’t agree to hear a case on who can own a gun, has the court actually swung to the right?
Gun control supporters hailed the the decision, with Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, remarking:
“If nothing else is clear from today’s decision, the court signaled that it’s not making a 180-degree turn where it’s going to take every gun case and rule for the gun lobby in every case.”
Another gun case remains before the justices, but it’s unclear when exactly the court will decide whether or not to take it.
In the other case, a New York law is in question:
“Two New York state residents who sought a license to carry guns outside their home but were denied because they didn’t meet the state’s requirement of having a ‘special need for self protection.'”
Will Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett agree to hear that case? Based on their decision today, it seems unlikely.
