Claire McCaskill, the former Democratic senator turned MSNBC pundit, dropped a real head-scratcher on Chris Jansing Reports this Wednesday, accusing the Supreme Court’s conservative justices of acting like liberal justices in the ongoing birthright citizenship case. Her beef? They’re supposedly ignoring the plain language of the 14th Amendment by even considering whether it truly grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. McCaskill’s spin flips the script: in her world, textualism—the very method conservatives champion—is now a liberal betrayal of the Constitution. It’s peak projection from the left, where plain language only counts when it delivers progressive outcomes, like open borders.

This isn’t just cable news theater; it’s a warning shot for the Second Amendment community. McCaskill’s rhetoric exposes the left’s playbook: when originalism and strict constitutional interpretation threaten their policy wishlist, they rebrand it as judicial activism. Remember how the same critics howled that Heller (2008) and Bruen (2022) ignored history and tradition to invent an individual right to bear arms? Fast-forward to today, and suddenly textualists are villains for applying the same rigor to the 14th Amendment. The hypocrisy underscores a deeper threat—progressives won’t hesitate to pack courts, impose codes of conduct, or push amendments if textualism keeps blocking gun control dreams or demographic engineering.

For 2A patriots, the implication is clear: celebrate these justices as Constitution’s guardians, not betrayers. Cases like United States v. Rahimi (upholding some domestic violence gun restrictions) show conservatives aren’t monolithic radicals, but their willingness to scrutinize plain language claims preserves the Framers’ intent across the Bill of Rights. If McCaskill’s crew gets their way, expect assault weapon bans to be deemed plainly constitutional too. Stay vigilant—defending originalism today secures your carry tomorrow.