Supreme Court Justices Slammed by Judge: 'Incredibly Dishonest'

Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddins slammed the U.S. Supreme Court as being "incredibly dishonest".

The Supreme Court has faced growing concerns from some legal experts over its decisions on issues like abortion rights, with critics accusing the court's conservative justices of ignoring precedent in their decisions. Meanwhile, the court has faced ethics scandals, prompting it to adopt an ethics code last November.

Polls have found that Americans have become less supportive of the Supreme Court. Gallup found in September 2023 that only 41 percent of Americans approve of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job, while 58 percent said they disapprove. Five years earlier in September 2018, 51 percent said they approved of the court, while 40 percent said they disapproved.

Eddins, appointed to Hawaii's highest court by former Democratic Governor David Ige in 2020, has been critical of some of the court's rulings in his legal opinions. He has been critical of the court's conservative justices' "originalist" interpretation of the law, particularly in his ruling State v. Wilson, in which he broke with the court on his interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The National Constitution Center defines originalism as the belief that "the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law."

In a new interview with Slate published on Tuesday, Eddins shared his frustration on SCOTUS.

He said he feels the justices "cherry pick history" when making their decisions, criticizing originalism for reviving "the value judgments of a racist, misogynistic, homophobic society and constrains the value judgments of contemporary judges."

Writing the Wilson opinion was a "pretty fun process because the U.S. Supreme Court has 'totally disregarded the text, history, tradition, and purpose of the Second Amendment' in their rulings on gun rights," he said.

"So in Wilson, we decided to play on the originalism playing field and show how the justices were incredibly dishonest about how law and facts are cherry-picked. That was not a difficult thing to do," he said.

Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court's public information office for comment via email.

In that case, the Hawaii Supreme Court unanimously sided with a law that prevents people from publicly carrying guns if they do not have a license to do so.

Notably, Hawaii's constitution has similar language to the U.S. Constitution, stating, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

While the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment as an individual right to bear arms, Eddins wrote in that decision he interprets it as more militia-centric, according to Reuters.

He wrote, "Those words do not support a right to possess lethal weapons in public for possible self-defense."