Originally Posted by local_dirt
Originally Posted by 257Bob
What I find amazing is that people talk about activist judges, those who view the constitution based on their own personal political positions, not what the constitution actually says. Here's a perfect example from Breyer

"In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer mentioned recent mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, Buffalo, N.Y., and elsewhere, saying it is "often necessary" for the court to consider gun violence in deciding Second Amendment issues"

No, it's not necessary, what's necessary is making sure that laws passed by states with the intention to limit our constitutional rights are corrected when they trample on our freedoms. I'm thrilled for the win but disgusted by the arrogance of those who think they are in the right to deny us our God given rights of freedom!




What's "necessary" is finding enough tall trees in DC..

Plenty of cherry trees.

Dog I rescued in January

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]