Contrary to its claim to use a literal “originalist” interpretation of the Founders’ intent in writing the Constitution, the Supreme Court — since the confirmation of Scalia, Thomas and Alito — has used tendentious and partisan arguments to accomplish pre-determined outcomes.

These decisions include:

• The dismantling of laws regulating the ownership and use of firearms, disregarding the text of the Second Amendment, which refers to a well-regulated militia. As former Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, “The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires;”
• The application of a “major questions doctrine” found nowhere in the Constitution, which gives courts the ability to nullify legally imposed regulations; and
• The invention of an “official acts” exemption to the requirement that the president obey the law of the land, which also exists nowhere in the text of the Constitution.

This is a partial list of this Supreme Court’s biased and false interpretations, which are made more outrageous by the conflicts of interest of several justices related to the cases involved in these decisions.

Potential reforms include the expansion of the court to 13 members (matching the number of federal circuit courts, which have increased from nine since 1890), and age and term limits for justices, as well as an enforceable code of ethics and conduct. Until reformed, the court will continue to lose respect.

Roger Carpentter
Freeport