The Court isn't making up law whole-cloth when it interprets the word "Unreasonable", it's applying the text of the Constitution and performing the functions that were delegated to it by the Constitution.
The Second Amendment is written in the Passive Voice wherein it is the action, not some actor, which is the subject; because the second amendment uses the passive-voice when it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” the “who” that might do it is irrelevant and therefore ALL levels of government that are bound by the Constitution are bound thereunto. (Therefore, because the Constitution can prohibit laws at least at the state level “No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts [...]”
Nor can the Supreme Court REDEFINE the language in which the Constitution was written: Common English. Let me reiterate, the Constitution was written in plain English, not some mystic Legalese English which we must have continually interpreted and expounded upon by the intercessions of the High Priests of the Judiciary for us to the high-gods that are the Supreme Court. [That last sentence should be read with ever-increasing sarcasm.]
LOL! In "Common English" the word "unreasonable" needs interpretation, for what might be reasonable to one might not be reasonable to another. Thus, it is the job of the COURT to define the term, not you.
If my interpretations of the Constitution are wholly invalid then my assertion that Dred Scot was a bad decision would be not only null and void but continually unsupportable in the legal realm; however, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that it was in error and reversed that decision. Now, consider this carefully, if the Supreme Court had not rescinded the Dred Scot Decision then would my [original] assertion that it was wrong be invalid? No! It would be unsupported in law, true; but it would not be invalid SOLELY BECAUSE it was contrary to the Supreme Court’s opinion up-to-this-date.
You are rambling now. Dred Scott was the law of the land until it was abrogated by a Constitutional Amendment.
Actually YOU did, in one of your posts; specifically, the fourth paragraph of post 107. The fifth sentence. Further along in that same post [para 18, sentence2] “For now, we leave to the lower courts the task of determining the circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” There it is, the subject of UNANNOUNCED ENTRY. And you, through quoting Justice Thomas, brought it up.
Except neither me, or Justice Thomas was talking about random people walking into a house unannounced. The case was about a police officer, with a valid warrant, who happened to execute that warrant without knocking and announcing. That's different than your "man on the street" question.
And here you are jumping straight into “exigent circumstances” which is not the subject of this thread except insofar as the courts have accepted that MERE ALLEGATIONS of drugs [which was the reason for the SWAT team’s arival, no?] are ‘exigent’ enough.
Wrong again. Not mere allegations, but allegations supported by probable cause. You know, the standard that the CONSTITUTION sets.
The Officers, being hyped-up and dyslexic, enter the wrong house and kill Uncle Fred who was minding his own damn business cleaning his guns after a day of shooting. Would Fred be justified in taking aim at the police? Would he be justified in killing them?
It depends.
LOL - Now you just prove yourself to be unreliable; "probable cause" is perhaps THE most misused phrase/idea in LEOdom/Judiciarydom. The Constitution requires that WARRANTS [for search or seizure], and not arrests, be based on 'probable cause'... IOW, a straight reading of the 4th amendment makes a huge portion of what the police do suspect, if not outright invalid.
Even though he's talking about the 5th here, there is some overlap to the 4th: Why You Should Never Talk to the Cops
Oh, by the way, this guy DOES have one of those JDs you sou vaunt.
Perhaps you should be more concentrated on eliminating the "us vs. them" mentality that cops have for us mere civilians/peons. It is actually quite ironic that the police were AGAINST having to enforce traffic laws; why? "Because it will fundamentally change the relationship between the officer and the citizen to that of an adversar[ial relationship]."