Yeah, a bit more clearly phrased in the Reuters article. I still don't follow the logic of the lawsuit or why the U S Supreme Court would confirm the decision of the CT Supreme Court, as the mother purchased the guns, not Adam Lanza, and therefore the advertising marketing of the guns is irrelevant. Even if Adam Lanza saw the advertising, it would have to be proven that it is what motivated Adam Lanza, and yet his motives again are clearly mental illness and revenge against his mother.
I've increasingly seen that judges are often not the detached objective protectors of the written law we would like to believe they are. Perhaps it was ever thus, or perhaps they have increasingly become judges who cave in to public opinion rather than enforce the legal standard (John Roberts, in his written decision about Obamacare), or judges who twist the law to conform it to their own liberal ideology or identity politics (Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg), or as can be observed watching any number of episodes of Judge Judy, a judge can takes a personal dislike for a plaintiff or defendant and that colors their ruling.
I'm sure there are many good judges who believe in the rule of law and enforce it, just as there are good cops, good doctors, good teachers, and a select few who let their biases twist their decisions. Or even good judges who occasionally make bad decisions.
But I have to admit, I increasingly see the law as something often twisted by corrupt actors to conform to their personal agenda, whereas 15 or 20 years ago I had near-absolute confidence in its being uniformly and fairly enforced. Now I see it as quite often a tool of revolutionaries who have infiltrated the legal system.
