3 ms·
These literalist justices are of the mind that if it wasn’t explicitly written, then it’s not allowed. Generalist/broad swath language is to be ignored. Only sp
by shrimpx 4y ago
These literalist justices are of the mind that if it wasn’t explicitly written, then it’s not allowed. Generalist/broad swath language is to be ignored. Only specific instruction is to be interpreted.
- zeroonetwothree 4y agoOnly when it’s convenient for their position. For the 2nd amendment they take a very broad reading.
- shrimpx 4y agoYes good point.
- redler 4y agoYet they decide other landmark cases with a newly invented test for "deeply rooted history and tradition", through which they can put on their highly subjective amateur historian hats to engineer a desired outcome.