This appears to be a reproach of the increasing radicalizaton of SCOTUS. From Wolford v. Lopez:
Having concluded the historical analysis required by Bruen and the Supreme Court’s other Second Amendment cases, we close with a few general observations. First, taking a step back from the historical analysis, the lists of places where a State likely may ban, or may not ban, the carry of firearms appear arbitrary. A State likely may ban firearms in museums but not churches; in restaurants but not hospitals; in libraries but not banks. The deep historical analysis required by the Supreme Court provides the missing link, but the lack of an apparent logical connection among the sensitive places is hard to explain in ordinary terms. In addition, the seemingly arbitrary nature of Second Amendment rulings undoubtedly will inspire further litigation as state and local jurisdictions attempt to legislate within constitutional bounds.
Bold mine. The author, a Judge Graber, just politely suggested that one of the more logical and prestigious groups has been issuing arbitrary opinions. The implication is that they decide on their preferred conclusion, and then, not even bothering to work backwards to the premises, which is awkward and not encouraged, instead simply said, “This is how it’s going to be.”
Which is just how certain anti-gun control decisions have recently seemed.
We must warn Judge Graber not to hit SCOTUS on the nose too hard with that rolled up newspaper.
