It’s rarely as simple as it is for people who post without reading the article. Reading makes things much more complicated. Better to just comment. :)
The real problem is the headline is “fake news”. The judge was not ruling on “stand your ground”, but now a million people are cheering that “stand your ground” was found “unconstitutional”. And when they find that is not true, they won’t blame the media, they’ll find someone they already hate to blame.
Also, technically, the judge did NOT rule that requiring what this law requires would be “unconstitutional” either. What he ruled “unconstitutional” was the legislature doing it. So, it is possible that the legislature could get the supreme court to adopt their procedure. Heck, since I think there are elections for judges, the people could elect judges that would implement that procedure, I suppose.
Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that but now that I re-read the article, it makes perfect sense. The author writes that the decision is 14 pages, so he has clearly seen it. If he read it he would know that it's focused on a procedural issue and he is not ruling that the concept of stand your ground is unconstitutional. And yet the quotes in the article are all about the substance of the law rather than the procedural issue.