FTFY.

exactly.

“Evidently Justice Brown is incapable of reading our founders words to understand their intent.”

She claims (and Kagan concurs) it’s “unworkable.”

It sounds to me like the new Justice and Kagan are simply unwilling to do the work required to be a SCotUS Justice, perhaps they both should resign so Trump can appoint a Justice willing to do the necessary work required…

“Key Takeaways

A mother in Palm Coast shot an intruder who threatened her and her children during a home invasion.
The intruder, Michael McDonald, 33, entered uninvited and faced the mother in her home.
She fired one shot, hitting him in the arm, and he fled, but deputies later found him at a hospital.
Sheriff Rick Staly supported the mother’s actions, stating she legally defended her family under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.
McDonald was arrested for burglary with assault and has a history of prior arrests.
…”

ht* tps://www.usacarry.com/florida-mother-shoots-home-intruder-who-threatened-her-and-her-two-children/

“Key Takeaways

A homeowner in Blue Springs shot and killed an intruder after calling 911 to report the break-in.
Police arrived but the homeowner acted in self-defense before they reached the scene.
The article highlights the reality that when seconds count, the police cannot always respond in time.
This incident reinforces the argument for the right to keep a firearm for personal safety in the home.
…”

ht* tps://www.usacarry.com/missouri-homeowner-shoots-intruder-dead-during-break-in-before-police-could-arrive/

I don’t trust the libertarians.

This is what happens when you have republicans, who will only talk about making weed legal.

“Cato scholars are not the only libertarians who have kind words for Judge Jackson. Former representative Amash, a Michigan Republican who left the party during Trump’s presidency as it moved in an increasingly lawless and authoritarian direction, said
this week, “Happy to see President Biden nominate someone to the Supreme Court who holds more than a few truly liberal views.”

ht**
tps://www.thenation.com/article/politics/libertarians-ketanji-brown-jackson/

Historical, the white Democrats will always find some black person to say publicly, that black people were comfortable, with the way things were. They didn’t need to have “outsiders”, to come in to try to improve their lives. By giving them gun rights for example.

Only now, in the 21st century, this is how the white libertarians think.

That’s not true, its what they try to claim though.

Its sort of like the democrats false complaint ‘black people and women can’t get ID’s so will not be able to vote’.

These ‘centuries-old evidence’ laws are already known and available. Its not like they have to be ‘discovered’ or sifted through to be found, they are already known. All ‘jurisprudence’ has these laws at their very foundation, laws that started out centuries ago and evolved over time to either be good law or bad law or laws kept or laws thrown out or the laws evolved based upon application and decisions by courts. Just like the requirement for ID to vote is already built upon ‘centuries-old evidence’ that people had to prove who they were for certain things (even in ancient civilizations people had to prove who they were for certain things, for example, a Roman citizen in ancient Rome was required to present evidence of being a Roman citizen in certain Roman law legal or administrative contexts or in some cases when challenged had to prove they were a Roman citizen) and our society is in part built upon that, one of these being ‘citizenship’ proof and such ‘citizenship proof’ capability has been available to women and black people for literally centuries via various methods just as ID is available to black people and women today.

Its a matter of determining if those ‘centuries-old evidence’ laws are analogous to what is being decided in context with what the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.

What the liberals want to do is create new law that favors them so they can control or do away with Constitutional rights.

Constitutional rights and the laws and court decisions upholding and enforcing and protecting them are not “a modern problem” like the liberals view them. They are literally ‘centuries-old evidence’ of the liberty and freedom the country founders intended, and its the job of SCOTUS, and every justice at SCOTUS, established based upon and functioning upon the text and history and tradition of that intended liberty and freedom and Constitution, to uphold and defend and protect those rights just like the country founders intended SCOTUS do. The liberals do not like that.

So, making the government (including states government) adhere to what the Constitution intended for constitutional rights demands an examination based upon ‘text, history, and tradition’ and not some made up ‘means-end scrutiny’ test the liberals want applied to constitutional rights that gives government what they want over 90% of the time because the government is not suppose to get what they want when it comes to constitutional rights of the people and the constitution even makes that clear by limiting government by explicitly listing protected freedoms in the Bill of Rights.