➡ No matter the brand or supermarket, you simply can’t find it. Thanks everyone, enjoy your day and take care.

Hey patriots, welcome back to the channel. My name is Jared and this is Guns and Gadgets, where we dig deep into Second Amendment news, constitutional battles, and power players at the highest levels, which brings us to this story coming out of the United States Supreme Court. We’ve got a remarkable story on the nation’s highest court, a story of tension inside the liberal wing of the Supreme Court of the United States involving Justice Katonji Brown Jackson and her fellow liberal justices. And yes, even within the liberal camp, there’s growing frustration. So strap in because this one has major implications for constitutional interpretation, court dynamics, and ultimately for gun owners as well, because this is probably going to affect any type of close cases on any subject.

So let’s roll with this. First, let’s get to the background here. Justice Katonji Brown Jackson was appointed in 2022 by Joe Biden as the first black woman to serve on the court. Big historic moment. Well, it would have been if it were not obvious, blatantly obvious, that she was a DEI higher, the definition of one. Before you get upset with that, here’s some facts. You should know that Joe Biden said before appointing her that he would appoint a black female rather than saying I’ll appoint the nation’s best jurist. Had he done that and then came to the conclusion that Katonji Brown Jackson was the best in the country, so be it.

But you can fact check that all you want. A person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. It’s long overdue in my view. Now, we have a report via the New York Times that her two liberal colleagues, justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, have significant misgivings about how she operates in the court. They reportedly believe her approach is too blunt, too abrasive, perhaps even undermining the collective influence of the liberal bloc.

In short, the three may not always be marching in lockstep. And that’s a big deal for liberals because with a lot of these Second Amendment cases coming up and reaching the court now, their camp is in trouble. And here are some key points to the story from the Times. According to the Times, the liberal justices are divided on the best approach to being a small minority on the court. Specifically, Kagan and Sotomayor are described as favoring diplomacy and subtlety when dealing with the conservative majority. They recognize they’ll need to pick up swing votes.

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts typically fill that void for them. And they’re going to need those types of people to swing with them if they ever have a hope to have a majority on a vote. Justice Jackson, by contrast, is characterized as more willing to assert her own dissents early and perhaps less focused on coalition building. The report says that her candor and propensity to add her own dissents were diluting the group’s impact. The article even claims that by the summer of 2024, the senior liberals were worried.

Kagan, for example, has even begun voting with the conservative colleagues more often than she used to. Yeah, you heard that right. Now, this dynamic is deeply unsettling for those who count on the liberal wing to hold firm when it comes to preserving their views on our constitutional protections. Now, gun owners might ask, why does this Supreme Court internal drama affect me? Well, the answer? Because the court’s decisions on constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment, often turn on more than just ideology. They turn on strategy, alliances, and internal cohesion. And when one block is frustrated, the risk is greater for mistakes, for unintended side effects, and for hard cases being decided in ways that could weaken a right or, hopefully, lead to more solid decisions in favor of regaining lost ground in the Second Amendment realm.

So here’s what to watch. Dissents versus consensus here. When justices Kagan and Sotomayor emphasize diplomacy, they’re implicitly saying we need to pick our fights, build majorities, not isolate ourselves, while Jackson’s approach tilts the other way, loud dissents, distinct identity, and less compromise. And over time, that may reduce the liberal wing’s ability to influence outcomes or shape precedent in favor of decisions they want votes on, which is where the swing justice leverage comes in, right? If Kagan and Sotomayor are reaching out to Barrett and Roberts, or at least trying to do so, they may be less inclined to push for maximalist originality or constitutionalist or originalist outcomes.

Now, for gun owners, it could mean more wins as well. Now, the report suggests that Jackson is seen as less concerned with being a colleague and more concerned with rhetoric and identity. That opens the door for the majority side to say, see, those liberals are disorganized. They’re making it up on the fly, and they’re making it about identity, not jurisprudence. And that matters because if the court appears divided, fractured, or politicized, it lowers its own institutional standing. And when rights are on the line, you want a court with legitimacy, not one with internal turmoil, could also play out well for the Second Amendment cases, as I’ve mentioned a few times.

If the liberal left in the court can’t even get along, well, they’re probably going to have issues making, say, a Barrett or a Chief Justice Roberts to side with them on issues when it comes to the second and other issues. A fragmented liberal wing may struggle to restrict the Second Amendment when the court shifts. And if the conservatives hold firm and the liberals remain split, then the outcomes are probably better for moving the right to keep and bear arms closer to that in which the founder is intended. So who is Justice Katanji Brown Jackson in this context? Beyond the history, making the fact of making her appointment the way they did, she brought a unique background, right? Former public defender, former federal judge, and now serving on the highest court for a life appointment, unless she’s removed for not serving in good faith.

But Supreme Court is basically a lifetime appointment. So her tenure will potentially span decades. But this article reveals that her approach may be creating friction. The story says that Jackson’s abrasiveness appears to have threatened Kagan and Sotomayor’s growing relationship with Amy Coney Barrett. In plain English, the junior liberal Justice is pressing hard and writing dissent after dissent and not always coordinating with the senior liberals who want a more strategic posture. Does that matter to you or me? I mean, if I was on the Supreme Court, yeah, you got to get along, especially if you have to work with these people and hopefully sway them to vote in your favor.

But I also think being true to your beliefs is important as well. What do you think? Ultimately, we want justices who boldly protect constitutional rights, not feelings, right? Including the Second Amendment and the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment, all of the amendments, all of our rights. And right or wrong, these internal dynamics can affect how the court handles major rights cases, including, of course, the 2A. And when the liberal wing is disunited, the door is wider for conservative majorities to make stronger rulings in favor of the Constitution. As gun owners, we often focus on broad rights wins, like, you know, 9-0 Keitano or 6-3 in this case, 5-4 in that one.

But given the court’s 6-3 conservative lien right now, and giving this internal liberal split, we have to pick our fights wisely, have the best cases with the best plaintiffs, and push for big wins rather than, you know, incremental stuff that could affect the Second Amendment negatively, a la Rahimi, right? Now, the bold headline is great, you know, shut out, unanimous. But we need all the wins that we can get, which is why this internal conflict could help us, could hurt us. Remember that constitutional rights should be nonpartisan in theory, but the politics at the court are pretty real as well.

As I’ve said before, for the Second Amendment fight, it’s not just the legislative branch that counts. The judiciary is a huge battleground as well. Protecting the Second Amendment means understanding the court as much as it means understanding the legislature or understanding your gun shop. If you found this breakdown helpful and insightful, hit that like button and subscribe to the channel if you haven’t already. And ring the bell notification so that you don’t miss any coverage of future issues that affect gun rights and constitutional freedoms. Drop a comment down below, what do you think about this split inside the liberal wing? Will it mean, will it have a positive effect on some 2A cases coming up? Or do you think it could have a negative effect on 2A cases? I’ll be reading your replies, so sound off below.

And remember, stay safe, stay vigilant, stay armed, and stay free. Thank you to Blackout Coffee for always supporting this channel. BlackoutCoffee.com slash G&G will get you to the website, and G&G 10 will save you 10% on your orders. Try our coffee. It’s roasted within two to three days of us shipping your order. It’s as fresh as you can possibly get without roasting it yourself. You can’t say that for any brand at any supermarket. You just can’t. Appreciate y’all. Have a great day. Take care. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.