[Texan In NC]

Color me unimpressed.

I suppose only we should only be impressed with nominees who have completely memorized every single case involving the second amendment then.

With respect, activism at any level in the judiciary is the great evil. The fact that an issue is "politically charged" does not make it any more important a case for the judiciary. The end game here should be getting politics as far away from the chambers as possible.

Second amendment issues are important, don't get me wrong. But let's not fall prey to the trap that Dems and liberal activists have baited us for the last decade or four. When we get the judiciary OUT of the policy making business, and put the power of making laws back into the hands of the legistlative branch (oh, say like maybe that thing called the Constitution suggested) then we will be that much closer to the America that Jefferson and Madison envisioned and our fathers fought and died for.

Roberts worked without notes and he was unbelievably impressive as such. But don't be fooled into believing that he would hear 2nd amendment or any other type of case without notes. What I heard was someone who wanted desperately to let the legistlative and executive branch get back to doing what they were designed so brilliantly to do. What I heard from Schumer and Feinstein was the left's collective panic that their own political agenda can ONLY be supported by a few self-centered, self-appointed dictators in the judiciary and would fall on deaf ears if left up to the people in this country to decide. Let's NOT go there, too. We will prevail, when it's up to the people.

[publiusF27]

I suppose only we should only be impressed with nominees who have completely memorized every single case involving the second amendment then.

Considering that there is a conflict between the circuits, and that there are only a total of 4 important cases involving the second amendment (Miller, Lopez, Emerson, and Silviera), I don't think it's too much to expect. I can remember them off the top of my head, and I'm not even a lawyer, let alone a SC nominee.

And even if he couldn't remember the names, I would think that before his confirmation hearings, he might just look into the status of the conflict between the circuits on this issue. He didn't. He was not sure whether Silviera vs Lockyer was still pending or not. Cert was denied by the Supreme Court a year or so ago. In all that time, he has not checked up on the issue.

I disagree that judicial acitivism is the great evil. It WAS, but now we need some judicial activists. For example, Scalia, the conservative, went along with preserving the existing order in the Raich case. He was upholding precedent, a favorite hobby of conservatives. Justice Thomas wrote the activist decision in that case, suggesting that the Court revisit their commerce clause jurisprudence. He wanted to overturn the line of precedents we've been following for 50 years, in favor of an interpretation which says that interstate means, well, interstate, and commerce means (this seems so darn obvious) commerce.