See bojack: Just say no

Isn't a call to end "judicial activism" just a way to make the court do little more than nod it's collective head in a search for congressional intent, and not toss out legislation or otherwise interfere with any act of the executive branch. To be functionally invisible (like this guys google search results). It is similar to a threat to pack the court to keep it from invalidating congressional legislation to ban child labor. Except that today the rise of the multi-national artificial corporation has already seized control of D's and R's alike, and the country.

Consider this Volokh Conspiracy: Farber on the Ninth Amendment. (Listen at 43 to 45 minutes on his view of the application of the bill of rights to corporations.)

Now consider modern discussion of NAFTA and Immigration in the context of comparing The Articles of Confederation with the current constitution and the supper expansive reach of the commerce clause. In my search for the best way to decrypt gobbledygook abstractions through posing real life possibilities (in a normative type analysis rather than just descriptive of what is). . . .how might consideration of a 56 State Solution (statehood in the US for the six Northern-most Mexican States) mess up big plans to use and maintain boundaries and differences in laws to play a game of labor and lobbying arbitrage? Is there one singularly unique feature of the United States that is superior to having a federal bench that is vigorous (no less than a co-equal branch of government) in the protection of individual liberty? Would the citizens of the six Northern-most Mexican states agree? Does it really matter whether they obtained such protection by way of seeking statehood in the US . . . or by way of demanding the same from the Mexican federal government? (see 56state.us)

As to judicial nominations generally: Is there anything more aggravating than trying to glean substance from something that appears to be little more than the contents of a vacuum tube . . . where the emptiness is sold as a good thing? When rhetoric replaces law, is this not smoke that strongly hints at some nearby fire?

======
One note:

Stone, 44, is a partner at Walder Hayden & Brogan in Roseland, where he has practiced white-collar criminal defense, complex commercial litigation and real estate law for 16 years.

The nomination was made without input from the state's two Democratic senators, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, ostensibly because Stone is a political conservative who is affiliated with The Federalist Society, a group that favors strict constitutional construction.

Ahhhh . . . defending white collar crime. Makes perfect sense. He must have made some good friends.