United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

B.L.U.F.
This case is quoted in Heller as the Court’s understanding of the meaning of “The People”. In reading the opinion, it becomes crystal clear that the Supreme Court has been using text, history, and tradition for a long time.
(2500 words)
Introduction
There are numerous terms we use to describe the courts and judges of the United States. The first term is “inferior”. This is a technical term. The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as congress might authorize.
All courts are inferior to the Supreme Court.
Below the Supreme Court are the Circuit Courts and state Supreme Courts. Under the Circuit courts are the district courts.
The states also have hierarchies of courts.
Inferior courts are supposed to follow the guidance given to them by their superiors. When they do not, they are “rogue” courts or justices.
I use the term “agenda driven” to describe those courts, judges, and justices that are so driving by their agenda that they can twist the plain text to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Listening to some questions and comments from circuit judges, it is often easy to identify those agenda-driven judges. When a judge says, “It can’t mean shall not infringe because that would mean we can’t regulate guns!”. It is pretty clear that their agenda is more important than the law.
