In a recent Op-Ed, Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark (D) made several statements regarding former President Trumpโs judicial appointments and the impact of the U.S. Supreme Courtโs decisions on the American legal landscape. Her focus was on what she sees as the conservative โsupermajorityโ on the Supreme Court, which she claims is threatening the rights of Americans, particularly in areas such as reproductive freedom, gun control, and environmental protection. However, a closer examination of her claims reveals a number of inaccuracies, omissions, and instances of fear mongering.
Misrepresentation of the Dobbs Decision
One of the central points in Clark’s Op-Ed is the assertion that the Supreme Court, due to Trump-appointed justices, โstripped Americans of their right to abortionโ in Dobbs v. Jackson Womenโs Health Organization. While itโs true that the decision overturned Roe v. Wade, Clarkโs characterization is misleading. The Dobbs decision didnโt ban abortion outright; rather, it returned the power to regulate abortion to the states. This means that individual states are now responsible for determining their own abortion laws, which is consistent with the constitutional principle of federalism, where states retain powers not explicitly granted to the federal government .
Clarkโs framing portrays the decision as dismantling womenโs rights, but it overlooks the broader constitutional question of whether abortion is a federally protected right under the Constitution. The Dobbs ruling determined that there is no such federal right, leaving the decision to state legislatures, many of which have chosen to maintain or expand abortion access. Itโs important to acknowledge that this shift in decision-making power is not necessarily an erosion of rights but a decentralization of authority.
Fear Mongering Over Gun Rights
Clarkโs Op-Ed also criticizes the Supreme Courtโs decision in Garland v. Cargill, a case involving the ban on bump stocks. Clark suggests that this decision undermines public safety by allowing firearms accessories that can be used in mass shootings. However, this is another example of fear mongering. The Court’s ruling in this case was rooted in a technical interpretation of federal law, particularly whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had the authority to ban bump stocks through regulatory changes without congressional approval.
More broadly, Clarkโs assertion that the Supreme Court has “expanded” gun rights is debatable. The Courtโs decisions in cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022) reaffirmed the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms as an individual right. Far from expanding gun rights, these rulings restored rights that had been curtailed by state and local governments in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment. Clarkโs portrayal of these rulings as a threat to public safety ignores the constitutional basis for the decisions .
Misleading Environmental Claims
Another claim in the Op-Ed is that the Supreme Court is “making it harder for the EPA and many other federal agencies to protect consumers, investors, and the environment.” Clark refers to Loper-Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the Court challenged the precedent of deferring to regulatory agencies’ expertise, a doctrine known as โChevron deference.โ While this case does involve environmental regulation, Clark’s framing of the decision as an assault on environmental protections is exaggerated.
The Loper-Bright case involved questions about the proper role of federal agencies and the extent of their authority to create binding regulations without clear congressional authorization. The Courtโs decision questioned whether unelected bureaucrats should have unchecked power to interpret laws in ways that affect millions of Americans, a legitimate concern given the scope of federal regulation. This isnโt about dismantling environmental protections, but about ensuring that such regulations have a clear legislative basis and donโt overstep constitutional boundaries .
Misinterpretation of Lower Court Decisions
Clarkโs critique extends to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which she describes as “too conservative even for our ultra conservative U.S. Supreme Court.” She highlights rulings from the Fifth Circuit that the Supreme Court overturned or blocked, including cases related to domestic abusers and the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). While Clark uses these examples to paint the Fifth Circuit as extreme, the reality is more nuanced.
For instance, in United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court overturned the Fifth Circuitโs decision that allowed domestic abusers to possess firearms. This was a rare instance where the Court disagreed with the conservative lower court, demonstrating that even Trump-appointed justices do not always follow a rigid conservative ideology. The checks and balances within the judicial system, including the Supreme Courtโs ability to overrule lower courts, are functioning as intended. Clarkโs argument implies that the judiciary is out of control, but in reality, the system is designed to allow for differing interpretations of the law and corrections when necessary.
Conclusion
Attorney General Charity Clarkโs Op-Ed paints a dire picture of the U.S. Supreme Court under the influence of Trump-appointed justices. However, many of her claims are either exaggerated or based on a misrepresentation of the facts. The Courtโs rulings on abortion, gun rights, environmental regulation, and other issues are grounded in constitutional interpretation, often restoring or reaffirming rights that had been eroded over time. While itโs fair to debate the impact of these decisions, Clarkโs portrayal veers too far into fear mongering and lacks the balance needed for a serious discussion of these complex legal issues.
It is crucial that the elected and appointed leaders of our communities make every effort to provide accurate and unbiased information. The failure to do so has greatly contributed to the partisan political climate, where misinformation and fear-mongering distort public discourse. When public officials misrepresent legal decisions or omit critical context, it deepens political divides rather than fostering informed debate.
Sources:
- “What Happened in Dobbs v. Jackson Womenโs Health Organization?” – SCOTUSblog
- “District of Columbia v. Heller and the 2nd Amendment” – Oyez
- “Chevron Deference and the Loper-Bright Case: A Legal Primer” – Legal Information Institute
- “Supreme Court Overturns Fifth Circuit Ruling on Domestic Abusers and Firearms” – Reuters
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
#fyivt #FearMongering #FactCheck #VermontPolitics
Leave a Reply