Another Supreme Court Loss for Becerra Looming – Abortion

The Supreme Court seems likely to strike down a California law that mainly regulates anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.

Both conservative and liberal justices voiced skepticism Tuesday about the law that requires the centers to tell clients about the availability of contraception, abortion and pre-natal care, at little or no cost. Centers that are unlicensed also must post a sign that says so.

The centers say they are being singled out and forced to deliver a message with which they disagree. California says the law is needed to let poor women know all their options.

Similar laws also are being challenged in Hawaii and Illinois.

At different points in the arguments, liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they were troubled by aspects of the California law.

Kagan said it seemed that the state had “gerrymandered” the law, a term usually used in the context of redistricting, to target the anti-abortion centers. Sotomayor said there was at least one instance dealing with unlicensed centers that seemed “burdensome and wrong.”

Click here to read the full article from the Associated Press

A Post-Janus Agenda for California’s Public Sector Unions

School education“If you do not prevail in this case, the unions will have less political influence; yes or no?” Kennedy asked. “Yes, they will have less political influence,” Frederick answered.
–  an excerpt from the Janus vs. AFSCME trial, quoted in the Washington Post, February 26, 2018

This past week the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the Janus vs. AFSCME case. Mark Janus, a public employee in Illinois, is challenging the right of unions to charge “fair share” fees, because he disagrees with the political agenda which he claims his fees help pay for.

What if government unions were accountable to their members? What if the politics of these unions mirrored the politics of the members? Would Mark Janus still want out?

It’s already possible for public employees to “opt-out” of paying that portion of their dues that fund explicitly political activity, although in practice the unions typically make that opt-out process very difficult. But Mark Janus is arguing that all dues paid to public sector unions are political, because the consequences of collective bargaining in the public sector impact taxes, government debt, budgets and spending priorities. He is arguing that the agenda of public sector unions, including collective bargaining, is inherently political.

In reality, saying all public sector union activity is inherently political is itself an understatement. In California, public sector unions spend about $300 million per year on explicitly political activity – funding political campaigns, political action committees, and lobbyists. But they spend at least another $700 million every year not just on collective bargaining – which for government workers is inherently political – but on education campaigns that attempt to influence voters on countless political topics.

Equally important is the influence California’s public sector unions wield that doesn’t derive its power from how much money they can spend, but from the fact that elected officials come and go, but the union hierarchy is permanent. Public employees who want to advance in their careers do not cross these unions.

Government unions are so powerful that only a very aggressive outcome in the Janus ruling will suffice to significantly undermine their power in California. The court must rule that union membership must be renewed annually via a transparent opt-in process. Only then will these unions become accountable to their members.

If there is an aggressive ruling in the Janus case that truly forces public sector unions to become accountable, imagine how it may affect the political agenda of these unions. One may hope it would ignite a civil war within these unions. Even in California, for example, about 40% of public school teachers identify as conservatives. Among public safety employees, a majority identify as conservative. Yet these unions are the power behind a state legislature ran by the most liberal politicians in the history of the United States.

Just for a moment, consider what these unions could do, if their leadership was committed to making California a land of opportunity again:

(if they actually cared about ALL of California’s working families)

1 – Restore the balance in California’s colleges and universities so that the ratio of faculty to administrators is 2 to 1, instead the current ratio wherein administrators often outnumber teachers.

2 – End all discrimination and base college admissions purely on merit. Expand STEM curricula so it represents 50% of college majors instead of the current 20%.

3 – Enforce the Vergara reforms so it is easier to retain quality public school teachers and easier to fire the incompetent ones. Eliminate barriers to charter schools.

4 – Restructure the penal system to make it easier for prisoners to perform useful public services. For example. along with working the fire lines during fire season, they could work all year clearing dead trees out of California’s forests. Use high-tech monitoring devices to reduce costs. Reserve current prisons only for the truly incorrigible.

5 – Scrap the High-Speed Rail project and instead use the proceeds to add one lane to every major interstate highway in California.

6 – Use additional High-Speed Rail funds to complete plant upgrades so that 100% of California’s sewage is reused, even treated to potable quality.

7 – Pass legislation to streamline approval of the proposed desalination plant in Huntington Beach, and fast-track applications for additional desalination plants, especially in the Los Angeles basin.

8 – Spend the entire proceeds of the $7 billion water bond, passed overwhelmingly by Californians in 2014, on storage. Build the Los Banos Grandes, Sites and Temperance Flat reservoirs, adding over 5 million acre feet of storage to the California Water Project. Pass aggressive legislation and fund aggressive legal actions and counter-actions, to lower costs and enable completion of these projects in under five years.

9 – Permit slant drilling to access 12 trillion cubic feet of natural gas deposits from land-based rigs along the Southern California coast. Build an LNG terminal off the coast in Ventura County to export California’s natural gas to foreign markets. Permit development of the Monterey Shale formation to extract oil and gas.

10 – Permit construction of “generation 3+” nuclear power plants in geologically stable areas of California’s interior. Permit construction of new natural gas power plants.

11 – Repeal AB32 and SB375 and make it easy for developers to build homes on the suburban and exurban fringes, instead of just “in-fill” that destroys existing neighborhoods.

12 – Require California’s public employee pension funds to invest a minimum of 10% of their assets in infrastructure projects as noted above. They could issue fixed rate bonds or take equity positions in the revenue producing projects, or a combination of both. This would immediately unlock approximately $80 billion in construction financing to rebuild California’s infrastructure. At the same time, save the pension systems by striking down the “California Rule” that prevents meaningful pension reform.

These reforms would lower the cost of living in California, at the same time as they would create resource abundance and hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs.

It is encouraging to think that the Janus ruling will reduce the political influence of public sector unions. But another possibility is equally tantalizing, that Janus will force unions to become accountable to their members. This, in turn, could be reflected in these unions fighting, for a change, to help all Californians.

To expect public sector unions to pursue the agenda outlined above is fanciful. But if California’s public sector unions were as committed to that pro-growth agenda as they are to their current agenda which is bankrupting California’s cities and counties at the same time as it obsesses over race, gender, and environmentalist extremism, they could probably get all of it done. And no other special interest could do this.

Only California’s public sector unions have enough power to successfully take on their current allies; the environmentalist lobby, the trial lawyers, and their puppet masters, the leftist oligarchy. No other special interest could take on these profiteers who have gotten filthy rich spouting leftist tripe, while they impoverished a generation of Californians.

Post Janus, it is time for a civil war within public sector unions. Using, hopefully, their option to not opt-in, it is time for public servants who care about ordinary Californians to make their voices heard.

Edward Ring is an analyst with the California Policy Center, which he co-founded in 2010. He is a prolific writer on the topics of political reform and sustainable economic development, and has been interviewed, published or quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the Economist,  Die Zeit, the Los Angeles Times, Politico, and other media outlets.

What Janus v. AFSCME could mean for California

Supreme CourtOn Monday, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. For California taxpayers, the potential impact is huge.

The issue is straightforward: Does public-sector unionism violate the First Amendment rights of workers who do not want to join a union?

The lawsuit was brought by Mark Janus, a resident of Illinois and an employee of the state as a child-support specialist. Because Illinois is not a right-to-work state, he was required to pay agency fees to the local chapter of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. In short, he was forced to associate with an organization with which he disagreed. A fundamental part of the First Amendment’s right of association is the right not to associate. As Thomas Jefferson noted, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

No one is watching the case more closely than Rebecca Friedrichs, the California teacher who brought a similar right-to-work challenge here in California. Her case also went the United States Supreme Court where it was widely believed she would prevail. Regrettably, the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia left the high court deadlocked in a 4-4 tie. With the arrival of Scalia’s replacement, constitutionalist Justice Neil Gorsuch, the days of forced unionism for public employees may be numbered.

The Janus case presents the identical issue as the Friedrichs case and, even though it involves a public employee from Illinois, there is no dispute that a ruling in Mark Janus’s favor would have the same binding effect in California as if Rebecca Friedrichs had prevailed in her action against the California Teachers Association.

If the court rules for the plaintiffs in Janus, state and local government employees in the 22 states that are not right-to-work jurisdictions will no longer be forced to subsidize unions as a condition of their employment. Rather, they will be free to join the organizations of their choice or not to join at all. The same applies to their contributions of money. In short, Janus may very well resurrect employees’ rights to free speech and association, as well as restore political balance by preventing public-employee unions from spending money collected from workers who may be opposed to the union’s political agenda.

And that latter point is key.

In California, public sector unions are without question the dominant political force. With their ability to extract hundreds of millions of dollars annually from their members, they are able to set the political agenda (which usually includes big employee compensation packages) and are able to defeat even modest reforms in education, welfare and criminal justice. Moreover, their prodigious campaign spending allows them to rent politicians who will make sure that the collective bargaining agreements that are executed with the unions favor the unions to the detriment of taxpayers who must pay for all this largess. The business community and taxpayer interests in California enter every political battle at a disadvantage from the start.

It doesn’t take a seer to predict what will happen in California if the plaintiffs in Janus prevail. The experience in other states which have opted for right-to-work status has been dramatic. When union membership is optional, union membership — and forced union dues — decrease. It is very likely that the political strength of California’s public sector unions will diminish if public employees no longer have to pay dues. At that point, interests that favor lower taxation and a positive business climate might finally be able to have their voices heard.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

This article was originally published by the Southern California News Group

Supreme Court denies challenge to California gun waiting period

In a blow to gun rights activists, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases that is intended to guard against impulsive violence and suicides.

The court’s action underscored its continued reluctance to step into a national debate over gun control roiled by a series of mass shootings including one at a Florida school last week. One of the court’s staunchest conservatives, Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented from the decision to reject the case and accused his colleagues of showing contempt toward constitutional protections for gun rights.

The justices also declined to take up a separate gun case involving a National Rifle Association challenge to California’s refusal to lower fees on firearms sales and instead use some of the fee money to track down weapons owned illegally.

The gun rights groups and individual gun owners who challenged the waiting period had argued that it violated their right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. The challengers did not seek to invalidate the waiting period for everyone, just those who already owned guns and passed a background check. …

Click here to read the full article from

California unions brace for a Supreme Court loss

California labor leaders sound almost apocalyptic when they describe a looming Supreme Court case that many of them concede likely will cost them members and money.

“Everything is at stake,” says Yvonne Walker, president of Service Employees International Local 1000, state government’s largest union.

“It’s a blatant political attack,” says Eric Heins, the leader of the massive California Teachers Association.

“That’s a way that the corporations are trying to take our legs out from under us,” says Kim Cowart, a state registered nurse and SEIU union leader.

They’re alarmed by Janus vs. AFSCME, the Illinois lawsuit that challenges the rights of unions in 22 states to collect so-called “fair share” fees from employees who do not want to join bargaining groups but may benefit from representation. That practice has been legal and common since 1977, when the Supreme Court favored union arguments for fair-share fees in a lawsuit against the Detroit Board of Education. …

Click here to read the full article from the Sacramento Bee

Violating the Constitution that created it

The political left’s responses to Donald Trump’s surprise Electoral College victory has led to many proposed “improvements” in that institution, ironically illustrating one of the main issues determining the outcome — what philosophy would guide judicial appointments.

Trump indicated that he would appoint justices that would honor the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. That would comport with our founders, expressed in Federalist 78, that “It will be the duty of the judicial tribunals … to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals.” That was at odds with Hillary Clinton’s intent to appoint “living Constitution” jurists, who prefer subsequent judicial interpretations they like over the Constitution itself, whenever they conflict, effectively re-writing the Constitution.

So left-leaning legal scholars have illustrated their preferred means of Constitutional redefinition to produce their desired results via Electoral College “reform” proposals.

Kenneth Jost, author of the Supreme Court Yearbook, argues, “The electoral college is enshrined in the Constitution, but that doesn’t make it constitutional.” He arrives at that internally inconsistent conclusion because “The Supreme Court established the principle — ‘one person, one vote’ — in 1964.” But that is not in the Constitution. It is a much later court invention, now being used retroactively to define part of the Constitution unconstitutional. The fact that our founders did not find that so when they wrote and adopted the Constitution is simply ignored.

University of California, Irvine, Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading liberal Constitutional interpreter, takes the same theme further. He argues that “the text of the Constitution is modified by its amendments,” so the Electoral College allocation of votes should be declared unconstitutional as violating the constitutional amendments [citing the 5th Amendment] that guarantee equal protection of the law.” This, despite the fact that adopters of the Bill of Rights in 1791 clearly found no unconstitutionality in the Electoral College from the 5th Amendment. Neither were earlier examples of popular vote winners who lost in the Electoral College asserted to be unconstitutional. Chemerinsky, as Jost, builds his case not on the Constitution, but upon “The Supreme Court long has held,” followed by some ruling that twists the Constitution and can now be interpreted as at odds with the Electoral College, plus the claim that the redefined constitutional meaning should now trump the Constitution.

Neither of these prominent challenges to the Electoral College relies on the Constitution. Arguments are instead grounded in previous “The Supreme Court has held” rulings that deviated from consistency with the clearly understood original meaning of the Constitution. This is, in fact, such a common approach in “living Constitution” jurisprudence that scholars have even compiled “worst of” lists, such as Robert Levy and William Mellor’s The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom.

Should America be faithful to the Constitution, and the sharply limited federal government of enumerated powers it created to protect our freedoms from abuse at its hands, as the earlier, controlling precedent, or should we accept precedents that have already warped it almost beyond recognition? If the Constitution’s meaning is to be so easily changed (but only when the left finds it amenable to their ends) that even “emanations from penumbras” around other rights can effectively rewrite it, why did our founders spell out such a difficult process for changing it? And why should we respect precedents from 1964 or others years long after America’s establishment, on the basis that the Constitution must be upheld, when those precedents distorted it rather than upheld it? Surely that Alice in Wonderland approach to constitutional meaning is too weak a reed to throw out the Electoral College as violating the Constitution that created it.

Gary M. Galles is a Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, an Adjunct Scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a member of the Foundation for Economic Education Faculty Network. His books include Lines of Liberty (2016), Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies (2014) and Apostle of Peace (2013).

Pascal’s Wager – Bet On Trump

Image processed by CodeCarvings Piczard ### FREE Community Edition ### on 2016-02-03 22:52:04Z | |w«JF

Though born a few years after the official end of the Renaissance, Blaise Pascal was a true Renaissance man. He was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and top notch Christian philosopher. His most famous work is the book Pensees. The most famous item in that tome is a discourse on why it is logical and rational to live a Godly life even if you don’t believe in God.

This has become known as “Pascal’s Wager,” and can be summarized thusly: A rational person should live as though God exists. If God does not exist, you lose nothing except some worldly pleasures by believing in Him. But if God does exist, you gain eternal life by living a good life, but will suffer eternal damnation if you deny Him through a life of debauchery. (A giant hat tip to Father Lawrence at St. Francis High School long ago for patiently taking the many, many hours necessary to get this across to a bunch of thick-skulled seniors in “Apologetics” class.)

Pascal’s wager has become my fire-wall in arguing with the Kool-Aid drinkers of  NeverTrump. Backed into a corner on the fact that a federal judiciary appointed by a President Hillary is a clear and present existential danger to all things conservative, the last refuge of these scoundrels is that Trump can’t be believed. They say that Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court appointees – developed with the input of the impeccably upright and conservative Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society – is a scam, that he has no intention of appointing such stellar conservatives to the courts.

This is where old pal Blaise comes in. His wager applies to the Trump v. Clinton presidential choice in this way: If the NeverTrump folks are right and I am wrong – if Trump’s court appointments would be mediocre at best and as bad as Hillary’s at worst – then we are no worse off by voting for Trump. Whether he wins or loses, we still have an awful judiciary.

However, if I am correct and the NeverTrump folks are wrong, then Trump’s court appointments will be full of young Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomases. That represents the difference between salvation for conservatives and our values from a Trump judiciary and the gang rape of the Constitution which is certain with a Hillary-appointed judiciary. This is a wager that ought to be obvious even to the most deranged NeverTrumpster. The only rational bet, the only safe bet – vote – is for Trump.

Rational thought, however, has never been a strong point of the NeverTrump cabal, and NeverTrump-land has lately become a logic-free zone. They obsess on irrelevancies, frothing about how much rent he charges his campaign office in Trump Towers, but ignore Hillary making the State Department a giant cash laundromat for her foundation. Hillary lying to the families of the four Americans murdered in Benghazi is not as important to them as how many copies of “The Art Of The Deal” the campaign has purchased.

NeverTrump-land is inhabited by large egos and small minds, happy to play into the hands of the left-wing media to elect Hillary. No minor official who served in a previous Republican administration is too obscure not to be given breathless headlines and interviews as they denounce Trump. Any former Fourth Assistant Undersecretary to the Chief Deputy Paper Shuffler in the Department of Swamps and Sewers is guaranteed 15 minutes of fame if he or she will wax hysterical about the dangers of Trump.

The moral preening of NeverTrump is as unending as it is astounding. Conservative icon Richard Viguerie aptly described the situation as a battle between “the new puritans and Trump’s revolutionary conservatives.” The conservative grassroots workers who are rallying to Trump are not rich or famous and don’t want to be. They want to be left alone to live their lives and raise their families as they see fit – through traditional conservative American values. By supporting Trump in order to do so they have become revolutionary conservatives.

On the other side of this divide is an a group of self-appointed conservative grandees – inside the D.C. beltway, insulated, isolated from the real world. Led by Billy Kristol, Bow Tie Will and National Review magazine, NeverTrump has devolved into a group of holier-than-thou pearl clutchers. They are the new puritans, horrified that this brusque, brash brute from New York dared to rouse the rabble in fly-over country, and did so without their permission.

Kristol and Will fit Vice President Spiro Agnew’s description perfectly of “nattering nabobs of negativism” and “effete, impudent snobs.” National Review was once a great magazine, founded by conservative giants Bill Buckley and Bill Rusher. As they rail against Trump, the new puritans currently running National Review have made it largely irrelevant. By embracing NeverTrump they are ignoring one of Buckley’s most famous bits of advice. He said that when faced with a choice between less-than-perfect candidates, conservatives should always choose “the most rightward candidate with the best chance of winning.”

Hmm, the most conservative candidate with a chance of winning. That’s apparently a tough one for our new puritans.

In closing, I want to once again make clear that I am well aware of Trump’s imperfections, both as a person and as a candidate. However, none of those imperfections threaten the future of the country. Hillary appointing far-left zealots to the federal judiciary and bureaucracy absolutely does. Longtime conservative warrior and comrade-in-arms Allen Brandstater  (we met in 1965 in “Youth For Reagan For Governor”) put the choice this way: “It’s between castor oil, which is unpleasant but won’t kill you and arsenic, which will.”

Bill Bennett, Secretary of Education during the Reagan years, put it a bit more elegantly: “Our country can survive the occasional infelicities and improprieties of Donald Trump. But it cannot survive losing the Supreme Court to liberals and allowing them to wreck our sacred republic. It would reshape the country for decades.”

Pascal’s wager would no doubt be on the castor oil, infelicities and all, instead of the arsenic.

Bill Saracino is a member of the Editorial Board of CA Political Review.

‘Right to Vote on Taxes’ Case Now Before California Supreme Court

TaxesLast week the California Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could determine whether the right to vote on local taxes, which is constitutionally guaranteed by both Propositions 13 and 218, will cease to exist.

The case, California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, at first glance seems limited to a narrow technical question: When a local initiative seeks to impose a new tax, does the issue need to be put to the voters at the next general election or can the proponents, relying on other laws, force a special election? But in answering that question, the lower court ruled that taxes proposed by initiative are exempt from the taxpayer protections contained in the state constitution, such as the provision dictating the timing of the election.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), which filed the petition seeking Supreme Court review, was alarmed because the constitution’s taxpayer protections include the right to vote on taxes. If local initiatives are exempt from those protections, then public agencies could easily deny taxpayers their right to vote on taxes by colluding with outside interests to propose taxes in the form of an initiative, then adopting the initiative without an election.

The import of the case was not lost on those who dislike Proposition 13’s requirement that local special taxes – those imposed for specific purposes – receive a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. For example, backers of a tax to subsidize a new sports arena in San Diego were hoping that the lower court ruling would allow them to impose a special tax with only a simple majority vote.

Some legal scholars suggested that the lower court decision was not as far-reaching as feared by HJTA. But the fact that the Supreme Court granted review, which it does in only a fraction of cases it receives, validates the concern about the potential scope of the lower court ruling.

By way of background, the case began when the California Cannabis Coalition (CCC) circulated an initiative petition to legalize medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Upland. The initiative requires each dispensary to pay the City an annual $75,000 tax. CCC collected enough signatures to qualify for a special election. But a provision of Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, part of the California Constitution approved by voters in 1996, requires tax proposals to be presented at a general election for city council candidates. (This forces candidates to identify for or against the tax, which helps voters choose the taxpayer-friendly candidates.)

The Court of Appeal ruled that taxes proposed by a local initiative are not subject to Proposition 218. The ruling, however, was not limited to Proposition 218’s election date requirement. The Court said taxes proposed by initiative are exempt from all of 218.

HJTA, having sponsored Proposition 218, was so concerned by the decision, it offered to represent the City of Upland at no cost to take the case to California’s highest court. It was HJTA’s petition on behalf of the City of Upland that was granted.

Taxpayers of all stripes and interests will be watching this case very closely. California is already a hostile place for taxpayers so losing the right to vote on local taxes would simply be adding to the pain.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

This piece was originally published by

New Gun Laws in California Would be in Supreme Court’s Crosshairs

Photo courtesy of krazydad/jbum, Flickr.

Photo courtesy of krazydad/jbum, Flickr.

Gun owners in California recently woke up to the news that the California Senate had passed a stack of bills putting new restrictions on the use of guns.

If they all become law, you’ll need a license to sell ammunition and a background check to buy it, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds will be illegal, more guns will be classified as “assault weapons,” homemade guns will need state serial numbers, and it will be a crime to loan a gun to anyone who isn’t a family member or a licensed hunter.

Are those proposed laws constitutional?

The Supreme Court said in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that Americans have the right as individuals to keep and bear arms. The court struck down Washington, D.C.’s, “absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”

But the Heller decision left many questions unanswered, starting with whether the Second Amendment was binding on the 50 states as well as on the District of Columbia.

When the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were ratified in 1791, nobody thought they applied to the states. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in 1833 that if Congress had intended the Bill of Rights to bind the states, “they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.”

That understanding still prevailed at the start of the 20th century, as bank robber “Gunplay” Maxwell discovered. In 1900 he complained that Utah had denied his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, but the U.S. Supreme Court said the first 10 amendments “were not intended to and did not have any effect upon the powers of the respective states,” adding, “This has been many times decided.”

The Supreme Court never said the whole Bill of Rights applies to the states. Instead, there was a gradual process of selectively declaring particular rights to be “fundamental” to liberty. That makes them apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which says the states can’t deny liberty to any person without due process of law.

“Gunplay” Maxwell was ahead of his time. The Supreme Court decided that trial by jury was “fundamental” to liberty in 1968.

In 2010, two years after the Heller decision, the right to keep and bear arms was declared “fundamental” in McDonald v. Chicago.

This gradual “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment has been going on for about 90 years and has silently transferred power from state legislatures to federal courts. For example, in 2011 the Supreme Court struck down a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors. The justices said California had not shown the court a “compelling” reason to have a law that infringes the First Amendment rights of video game creators.

Soon, California may have to show the court a “compelling” reason for laws that infringe the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.

For 90 years, the justices have invented balancing tests and “scrutiny” levels to guide decisions in these cases, but it remains what Justice Felix Frankfurter called it in 1947: “merely subjective.”

Does California have a “compelling” reason to require background checks for ammunition purchases? One justice may think so, but another may find the reason “only rational.” Five votes for “compelling” would uphold such a law, while five “only rationals” would be enough to strike it down.

Over the next decade, Second Amendment rights will be profoundly affected by the personal values of the justices appointed by the president who’s elected this November.

The NRA made an early endorsement and started the fight before June.

Supreme Court OKs California’s use of ‘unclaimed’ cash

As reported by the Los Angeles Times:

California’s system of seizing and spending “unclaimed” cash from banks, mutual funds and defunct businesses has survived a Supreme Court challenge.

The state says it is now holding $8 billion in lost assets. And from this fund, it takes about $450 million a year to add to the state budget.

After considering an appeal for four months, the justices said Monday they would not hear a long-running lawsuit that contends the state does not do enough to notify the rightful owners before seizing their assets.

Under the state’s law, accounts can be seized if a bank or retirement fund has lost track of the owner for three years. …

Click here to read the full story