The judiciary is supposed to have one guide when forming fresh perspectives: the Constitution. As they examine the constitutionality of laws and other government actions, they often refer to previous rulings as precedent while looking for similar rulings as justification for leaning one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s the Constitution alone that is supposed to guide their judgments. That’s why we should look for judges who have originalist perspectives, not necessarily conservative ones (though, let’s be honest, the vast majority of originalist perspectives will align with a conservative perspective).

Part of conservatism is conserving the original intent of a law, or in the case in question, a treaty. The Yakama Tribe signed a treaty with the United States government that gave them control of a huge amount of tribal land in Washington state. Part of the exchange included the ability for Yakama traders to use U.S. highways for free.

Washington charges per gallon for fuel trucked in from out of state. One Yakama company claimed the 1855 treaty meant they were not to be charged this tax. The decision in the Supreme Court went mostly along expected political leanings with the “conservative” Justices wanting to charge the tax and the “leftist” Justices siding with the Takama Tribe. The tiebreaker turned out to be Neil Gorsuch, who went to the “leftist” side but with the only conservative reasoning to drive a vote.

The dissent claimed the treaty allowed for free passage on highways just as any American citizen can travel, but that the taxes set by Washington must still be paid. Only Gorsuch recognized that the original intent of the treaty was to grant the tribe free passage, as in free of charge regardless of what the U.S., state, or local governments wanted to charge. This is the right perspective. It’s the conservative perspective.

Sad that the "conservatives" in the Supreme Court other than Neil Gorsuch were willing to abandon the original intent of a treaty to play party politics. This should have been a unanimous decision. Disappointed in Thomas most of all. https://t.co/iBIcZB2FnG

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) March 20, 2019

Should the other Justices who voted like Gorsuch get kudos as well? Probably not. I haven’t read their statements, but it’s safe to assume they ruled based on the party politics of supporting Native American rights whether they’re justifiable or not. Gorsuch ruled based on a proper interpretation of the treaty.

Conservatism and originalism go hand-in-hand when judges take the politics out of what they do. It’s hard. I’m not a judge so I shouldn’t… judge. But this seems to be a case where party politics played too much of a role. Gorsuch was right.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

An under-reported story last year revealed multiple “academic” journals, where only the highest levels of academic thought leadership is allowed to publish, put nonsense hoax articles in their publications simply because they perpetuated radical progressive thought. These peer-reviewed journals were willing to publish utter garbage as long as the garbage smelled like the hyper-leftist garbage they normally publish anyway.

Libertarian pundit John Stossel tried to interview the editors of these prestigious journals which were hoaxed, and was only able to find one willing to go on camera. Roberto Refinetti from the academic journal Sexuality and Culture came on air to discuss the hoax and the problems with academic journals. But even he was unable to come up with a valid response about why these journals were so easy to fool.

Stossel read some of the reviews from “experts” in the field that were used to determine whether or not the papers should be published. When Stossel noted that one of the reviewers was an idiot, Refinetti rushed to the defense by blaming the hoaxers and said, “They made up data that he or she [the reviewer] wished he had but he didn’t, so when he sees, ‘Wow, these people did this study that I wanted to do and they got the results that I thought should be there, this is great!'”

In other words, Refinetti came to the same conclusion as the hoaxers and Stossel: Some if not most of those who review these papers make their decision based on whether or not the conclusions fit their worldview, not whether or not the papers were actually correct.

This is just one of many examples of why leftist academia, which is the vast majority of all academia, operates with the sole goal of reinforcing their biases rather than informing students or giving the education system proper facts about the world.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Some believe vape products are a wonderful way to stop cigarette smoking, both for those who are currently smokers as well for future smokers. Others see it as a gateway through which kids can become addicted to nicotine and eventually start smoking real cigarettes. That’s a debate that should be happening through education and public awareness. Unfortunately, San Francisco doesn’t believe in people being able to think for themselves properly, so they’ve decided to consider another measure that will protect the people from their own stupidity.

At the center of this measure is Juul, the fast-growing vape company that happens to be based in San Francisco. Lawmakers have been out in force proclaiming the company is evil and how they don’t want them anywhere near San Francisco. They don’t want e-cigarettes sold in the city. They don’t want the people to be able to have them shipped to the city. They don’t want them used in the city.

Let’s keep in mind that this is a city with more drug addicts than public school students, a rampant homelessness problem, and so many regulations that people need a herd of lawyers just to navigate the process of trying to do business there. They’ve elevated the cost of living to be so prohibitive, only the truly wealthy can live there comfortably, yet it’s a city that proclaims to be caring of their fellow men. In reality, they’ve crafted an authoritarian society within the boundaries of the United States that has been empowered to subvert rights at a grand scale.

Here’s their grand plan:

Juul is not producing an illegal substance. It has not been accused of breaking other laws in the way it operates its business. Studies have been done with mixed results about whether or not Juul is a gateway for nicotine use by children, which is why the city voted to ban fruity and other kid-friendly flavors. But rather than address the actual problems within their dysfunctional city, they’d rather draw attention to the evils of vaping.

It’s a wonder how any Libertarians or liberty-loving conservatives can continue living there. It’s the nanny state of nanny states.

San Francisco has become a punchline of a city. They don’t believe in individual rights. They do believe that government can and should try to solve everything. If any American city needs an infusion of conservatism, it’s San Francisco.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?