That is quite literally the opposite of her judicial philosophy, which is that her personal opinion or preference is irrelevant and the clear, original meaning controls.

But I get how people who want judges to rule in tandem with their personal beliefs get this confused a lot. https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1309612684745363459

This is what happens when you spend so long relying on judges to legislate or amend the constitution from the bench.

You think that's what every judge does. And you can't think of any other reason they might reach a conclusion...like "the text and original meaning demand it."

I mean, it's terrifying.

ACB says "hey, the text, history, and tradition of the 2A is pretty clear that you can't permanently ban non-violent people from owning guns."

They insist it's "ACB personally wants to give the Boston Bombers AR-15s in prison because she's a maniac."

She says, "the Fourth Amendment clearly provides a greater degree of due process than a public university granted to the accused."

They say, "ACB is a rape apologist who hates women and personally wants to protect this rapist, who we know is a rapist because he was accused."

It's silly. It's absolutely silly.

And it's insulting.

She has never once reached a legal conclusion by saying 'yeah dudes, sorry, the pope compels me here,' or 'whoopsies, guess the answer is found in my preferences and not in the text.'