Wonderland

It is an unfortunate fact of life that as some people age their intellectual acuity seems to deteriorate. In the extreme and tragic case of Alzheimer's it is glaringly obvious. In the case of Justice Steven Breyer it is just as apparent but convoluted in the language that the left will latch onto in support of their position.

Founder Favored Gun Grabbers

YGBSM!!!!

They had just fought a revolution and defeated the strongest colonial power in the world. How? They asked citizens to bring their guns and join the fight. Folks who grew up with firearms and used them daily to feed their families also could take those arms and capture their freedom. To somehow suggest that the Founding Fathers feared armed Americans is ludicrous. To fail to recognize that the placement of the right to keep and bear arms at number two in the list of protected freedoms after only the freedom of intellectual political  expression is unconscionable.

When he suggests that Madison, acting alone, controlled the liberties preserved by the Bill of Rights defies belief. How could the convention reconvened to add the Bill of Rights as a necessity for ratification go against their core beliefs according to Breyer. How could the legislatures of the states, all independent and fractious in their debate be convinced to act counter to their principles on gun control? Is Breyer really serious?

But maybe the indication of the man's confused thinking is most apparent in this challenging construct:

Breyer, ..., outlined his judicial philosophy as one in which the court must take a pragmatic approach in which it "should regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing circumstances."

Am I alone in confusion regarding how you flexibly apply unwavering values? The very concept of unwavering defies the option of flexibility.

There is truly no fool like an old one.