Imagine the irony: liberal justices channeling their inner Antonin Scalia, the conservative lion of originalism, all in a heated Supreme Court showdown over birthright citizenship. That’s the spectacle Fox News contributor and GWU law professor Jonathan Turley couldn’t help but call hilarious on The Ingraham Angle. Turley zeroed in on oral arguments where left-leaning justices like Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissected the 14th Amendment’s plain text with a textualist fervor that would make Scalia beam from beyond the grave. No expansive interpretations here—just raw statutory language on who qualifies as a citizen under subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Turley’s point? The same ideological warriors who routinely twist the Constitution into pretzels on gun rights are suddenly strict constructionists when it suits their turf.

This flip-flop isn’t just courtroom comedy; it’s a masterclass in selective originalism that hits home for the 2A community. Remember how these same justices contort the Second Amendment’s shall not be infringed into a historical parlor game during Bruen or Heller? They demand tradition and history to gut carry rights, yet balk at applying the 14th Amendment’s original public meaning to anchor babies born to illegals. Turley’s observation exposes the hypocrisy: if textualism is gospel for citizenship, why not for the right to keep and bear arms? It’s a blueprint for 2A advocates—hammer the originalist hammer they fear, forcing them to live by their own rules.

The implications ripple far beyond immigration. A win for strict interpretation here could embolden originalist challenges to gun control sacred cows, like assault weapon bans or red flag laws, by mirroring this citizenship logic. For pro-2A warriors, it’s vindication: the left’s own weapons turned against them. Turley’s hilarious quip is our rallying cry—keep watching, keep fighting, because today’s textualist twist on the 14th might just reload the chamber for the Second.