Conservatives hoping for a solid majority on the Supreme Court may be disappointed. The two Trump appointees have sided with their liberal colleagues numerous times and have frequently disagreed with each other during their relatively short tenures on the court.
Per Fox News:
Democrats’ warnings that Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would solidify an unwavering conservative majority on the bench so far have not come to pass, with the two Trump-nominated justices crossing over to side with liberal colleagues on numerous occasions since joining the court.
The confirmations of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were met with fierce resistance amid concerns that they would tilt the Supreme Court for decades, perhaps even laying the groundwork to overturn Roe v. Wade. While that question remains unresolved as conservative states try to bring the abortion debate back before the high court, a range of other recent decisions indicate the two newest justices are ruling on a case-by-case basis, analysts say.
Here are just a few examples:
Gorsuch sided Monday with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, giving a narrow majority in support of a Native American man convicted for hunting in a national forest. Kavanaugh opposed the ruling.
A week earlier, Kavanaugh sided with liberals in a 5-4 decision that he wrote, ruling that Apple could be sued by iPhone owners over high prices in their App Store. Gorsuch opposed the ruling.
In March, the two found themselves in disagreement multiple times. Kavanaugh joined liberal justices in a ruling that delayed the execution of a cop killer amid claims that religious freedom would be violated if the death-row inmate's Buddhist spiritual adviser wasn’t present during his final moments.
Gorsuch then joined liberals in ruling that the Yakama Nation doesn’t have to pay a Washington state fuel tax, while Kavanaugh dissented.
Gorsuch then joined Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in dissent in a case brought by two Navy veterans who had been exposed to asbestos. But writing the court’s opinion, Kavanaugh said that the makers of pumps, turbines and blowers that required asbestos insulation to operate properly should have warned about the health dangers of asbestos exposure.
In refusing to rule along partisan lines, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are acting as the Founders hoped the Supreme Court would act. But for Americans hoping the Court would finally place real limitations on Washington's power, their track record thus far doesn't provide much reason for hope.
The Supreme Court will never reverse the last 100 years of judicial activism. The power of the federal government has expanded far beyond its proper scope, and even conservative justices are unlikely to make the kinds of broad, sweeping rulings this country needs to get back on track.
That's why, no matter who sits on the bench, the American people need to call an Article V Convention of States. A Convention of States is called and controlled by the states and has the power to propose constitutional amendments.
But, unlike the Supreme Court, a Convention doesn't have to wait for a case to come up in order to address specific issues. Under the Convention of States Project call, a Convention can propose amendments that address 1) fiscal limits on Congress 2) term limits on federal officials and 3) limits on the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.
Amendments in these subject categories can effectively reduce the power and scope of the federal government, get our nation's finances back in order, and end the plague of career politicians.
SCOTUS will never do half of what a Convention of States could accomplish -- no matter how many justices the president nominates.
Sign the Petition below to show your support!
