The history of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

The problem with the US supreme court is that it has become political and not impartial. If anything, it has become a joke.

Scalia was the wrong person to judicially amend the Second Amendment. Heller and its progeny need to be relegated to the dustbin of judicial decisions because it is not supported by reality, but is a "justice" promoting his beliefs over the law.

There were authorities which should have taken precedence, especially if that clown wanted to claim to be "an originalist".

As I have pointed out many times self-defence is not mentioned in the US Constitution. would also add that the Constitution makes clear that it deals with matters of the common defence in the preamble and is silent on self-defence. Any first year law student knows that when a legal document is silent on an issue that that issue is not covered. There are a few other accepted rules of statutory interpretation which pretty much rule out that self-defence is addressed in the US Constitution and that the Second Amendment should be extended to allow for deadly weapons to be used for that purpose.

This adds in that the concept of self-defence in traditional common law is a mitigation, not an excuse. The black letter common law for this is:

Self-defence is a legal doctrine which says that a person may use reasonable force in the defence of themself or another.

Reasonable force is not in the mind of the person claiming self-defence, but in the finder of fact's (jury or judge) opinion. But the rule is pretty much that deadly force is NOT allowed unless there are extreme circumstances.

This might be the time to push this issue. No matter what, I would like an answer on the matter of how an "originalist" can somehow rule on constitutionality since that is not found in the text of the Constitution.

Even more importantly, an Originalist should not go against precedent and the Constitution as written. I am not sure how one would handle overturning a law for unconstitutionality since that is not a role given to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. Instead, it is found in custom.

Having a power which could strike down improper, and I should say unconstitutional since the concept of judicial review also is not found in the US Constitution, 

It comes from the case of Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). Marbury also says that no clause in the Constitution is without meaning, which means that Heller and McDonald are BS since they ignore a clause in the Second Amendment.

The rule of law requires deference to precedent and legal method, which is something anyone wishing to bear the title of Supreme Court Justice should follow.