The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Rahimi today. I’m listening to the arguments and reading the transcripts.

I’ve not heard much from Justice Jackson that makes me consider her to be a “good” justice. Today she is showing some significant signs of attempting to do her job correctly.

She is questioning the state, and she is making the state actually define their position regarding historical analogs. In this particular line of questioning, she asks Then what’s the point of going to the founding era? I mean, I thought it was doing some work. But, if we’re still applying modern sensibilities, I don’t really understand the historical framing.

Furthermore, the lawyer for the state is good. She is staying on point, she is making her points. She is doing a much better job than the briefs indicted they would do.