new rights and sometime these actively undermine the constitution in the process. for example, we can see the different approaches to constitutional interpretation just today in the court's decision in mcdonald versus city of chicago. the five justices who voted to apply the second amendment to the chicago gun ordinance relied on history and precedent. on the other handing the four justices who voted not to apply the second amendment instead relied heavily on public policy argument, the kind that you would find debated in the halls of congress. the question raised by every supreme court nomination, i believeis whether the nominee believe notice traditional role or the activist vision. does a nominee believe that the courts should make policy, like congress, even though they are not accountable to the people for their actions, via elections? will the nominee enforce the written constitution and not invent are new rights or will the nominee see it as his or her job to change the constitution to align itself one their policy preferences? solicitor general kagan, as i have a heard and as you know, because you've never been a judge what we do know about you begins and largely ends with your impre