Our supposedly polarized Supreme Court ruled on this case in exactly the opposite way one might expect if one believed the justices to be partisans.
Charlie is right that the bump-stock case was, as a legal matter, simply about whether words mean what they mean. It is not true that a firearm with a bump stock becomes an automatic weapon, because it does not fire more than one bullet per trigger function. Therefore, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives does not have legal authority under the law it cited, which governs automatic weapons, to ban bump stocks. Open and shut.
The ATF promulgated this rule during the Trump administration. It was completely lawless behavior for it to have done so, as Charlie said after oral arguments. The administration was clearly responding to political pressure after the Las Vegas mass shooting, and rather than get a law passed through Congress to ban bump stocks — which would have been constitutionally legitimate — it decided to break the law instead by executive action. The Supreme Court was right to overturn it.
Our supposedly polarized Supreme Court ruled on this case in exactly the opposite way one might expect if one believed the justices to be partisans. The six Republican appointees, three of whom were appointed by Trump himself, ruled against the Trump administration’s rule and overturned the ban. The three Democratic appointees wrote a minority opinion arguing it should be allowed to stand.
Left-wing commentators are apoplectic about the decision. Their position is effectively that the Trump administration should have been allowed to break the law because the regulation it created was a good response to the Las Vegas shooting.
This case forces the Left to choose: Is it more pro-big-government or anti-Republican? And the answer is clear: it’s pro-big-government.
The bigger threat to the progressive project in the long run is to have originalist judges interpret the law for what it actually says, rather than what progressives wish it said. If that means siding with a Republican every once in a while, so be it. Progressives know that, on average, they will be the beneficiaries of a bigger, more powerful government.
Obviously, the Left is anti-Republican too. But it is pro-big-government first and foremost, and conservatives who want to effectively counter the Left need to remember that at all times. Being pro-limited-government provides the necessary contrast to effectively compete in American politics.