A rift is emerging among the Supreme Court’s conservatives — and it could thwart the court’s recent march to expand gun rights.

On one side is the court’s oldest and most conservative justice, Clarence Thomas. On the other is its youngest member, Amy Coney Barrett.

The question at the center of the spat may seem abstract: How should the court use “history and tradition” to decide modern-day legal issues? But the answer may determine how the court resolves some of the biggest cases set to be released in the coming days, particularly its latest foray into the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

If the court adheres to a strict history-centric approach, as Thomas favors, it will likely strike down a federal law denying firearms to people under domestic violence restraining orders.

But Barrett recently foreshadowed that she is distancing herself from that approach. If she breaks with Thomas in the gun case, known as United States v. Rahimi, and if she can persuade at least one other conservative justice to join her, they could align with the court’s three liberals to uphold the gun control law.

  • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 days ago

    Everything you said is true, but I still think her shift is being overblown. The opinion in which she criticized Thomas’s historical approach was a concurring opinion, she agreed with the result, but not the methodology. The result is what the vast majority of Americans will see, not that she happened to take a different road to get to the same place.

    And in the same concurring opinion, she had the audacity to hold up stare decisis, despite her hair-trigger willingness to overturn precedent in critical cases like Dobbs.

    I follow the court, and read the article. I guess I’m just way more cynical than you. I appreciate your moderating tone though, I hope I’m wrong about her.

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      You just caught me on a slightly less cynical day I guess. I share your concern and, generally, your cynicism, but I’m trying to find a little hope on this one. I would also note that every opinion was concurring on this case. It was unanimous.

      Regardless, thanks for you kind tone.