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">https://twitter.com/cmclymer/...

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

You think that& #39;s what every judge does. And you can& #39;t think of any other reason they might reach a conclusion...like "the text and original meaning demand it."

I mean, it& #39;s terrifying.

ACB says "hey, the text, history, and tradition of the 2A is pretty clear that you can& #39;t permanently ban non-violent people from owning guns."

They insist it& #39;s "ACB personally wants to give the Boston Bombers AR-15s in prison because she& #39;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& #39;s silly. It& #39;s absolutely silly.

And it& #39;s insulting.

She has never once reached a legal conclusion by saying & #39;yeah dudes, sorry, the pope compels me here,& #39; or & #39;whoopsies, guess the answer is found in my preferences and not in the text.& #39;