comfortable in setting aside the judgment of congress, the state, of local governments,r of other actors sprers the restrained juds cannily recognize the existence of choice. the constitution often had ambiguities. sometimes it was written%on purpose this way. judges recognize the existence of judgment, of having to make ccoices. they have to ask themselves why are they justified in setting aside a choice made by congress or the state legislatures? the balls and strikes methodology gives you the confidence to say i am here to declaim. with that in mind, i think there is something of a mmxed role in terms of activism and restraint onnthis court. the most dramatic example of each of these is the mcdonald decision applying the second amendment to the principles of the second amendment or the second amendment for the 14th amendment on the chicago ban on handguns. it is a cautious opening in in terms of result in that the court leaves open the question of what kinds of regulations may be consistent with the right to keep and bear arms and leaves the question open. even mcdonald was even more caious

comfortable in setting aside the judgment of congress, the state, of local governments, or of other actors sprers the restrained judges cannily recognize the existence of choice. the constitution often had ambiguities. sometimes it was written%on purpose this way. judges recognize the existence of judgment, of having to make ccoices. they have to ask themselves why are they justified in setting aside a choice made by congress or the state legislatures? the balls and strikes methodology gives you the confidence to say i am here to declaim. with that in mind, i think there is something of a mmxed role in terms of activism and restraint onnthis court. the most dramatic example of each of these is the mcdonald decision applying the second amendment to the principles of the second amendment or the second amendment for the 14th amendment on the chicago ban on handguns. it is a cautious opening in in terms of result in that the court leaves open the question of what kinds of regulations may be consistent with the right to keep and bear arms and leaves the question open. even mcdonald was even more cauti

comfortable in setting aside the judgment of congress, the state, of local governments, or of other actors sprerse restrained judges cannily recognize the existence of choice. the constitution often had ambiguities. sometimes it was written%on purpose this way. judges recognize the existence of judgment, of having to make ccoices. they have to ask themselves why are they justified in setting aside a choice made by congress or the state legislatures? the balls and strikes methodology gives you the confidence to say i am here to declaim. with that in mind, i think there is something of a mmxed role in terms of activism and restraint onhis court. the most dramatic example of each of theses the mcdonald decision applying the second amendment to the principles of the second amendment or the second amendment for the 14th amendment on the chicago ban on ndguns. it is a cautious opening in in terms of result in that the court lves open the question of what kinds of regulations may be consistent with the right to keep and bear arms and leaves the estionpen. even mcdonald was even more cautious in justice