These literalist justices are of the mind that if it wasn’t explicitly written, then it’s not allowed. Generalist/broad swath language is to be ignored. Only specific instruction is to be interpreted.
Only when it’s convenient for their position. For the 2nd amendment they take a very broad reading.
Yes good point.
Yet they decide other landmark cases with a newly invented test for "deeply rooted history and tradition", through which they can put on their highly subjective amateur historian hats to engineer a desired outcome.