The media finally appears to be “getting it” about what was really at stake on Nov. 8.
As noted by the Washington Post Sunday, Donald Trump will “inherit” more than a hundred federal court vacancies. This includes the empty Supreme Court seat, and any more that might come up during the next four years.
It also involves approximately 100 lower federal court vacancies. That is about twice the number Barack Obama had to fill when he took office eight years ago. It will, the Washington Post seemed to lament, allow Trump “a monumental opportunity to reshape the judiciary.”
Liberal activists are fretting, while conservatives are optimistic. Reshaping the judiciary to bring balance to the courts might be how many on the right define the situation.
Second Amendment activists are anxious to see whom Trump nominates to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s chair.
They also want to see more judges appointed to the lower courts, where most federal litigation is decided, since the high court does not take every case submitted for review. They want judges who don’t try to dance around the 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald rulings on the Second Amendment.
Hillary Clinton had made it clear she disagreed with the Supremes on the Second Amendment.
It seems no small coincidence that when the Post mentioned issues that could face federal judicial scrutiny, state gun control laws topped the list. When gun rights advocate Alan Gottlieb last month encouraged Trump to have his new Attorney General appoint an assistant whose only job would be to identify and challenge state gun laws that violate the Second Amendment.
Now that the Second Amendment has been incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment, under the McDonald ruling, Gottlieb thinks it should be up to the Justice Department to go after those laws. After all, he reasoned, the Justice Department has sued over other subjects, why not Second Amendment violations?