I have to admit, as I read through the document, I was smiling from ear to ear.
A buddy of mine is currently in law school so we have debates through instant messenger. It's actually pretty fun because we never call one another names and is good practice for him.
I shared this with him and specifically noted this part
We are not a rubber stamp. We require strict scrutiny here not because it aligns with our personal policy preferences but because we believe it is compelled by the law set out in Heller and Chester.
And then I said, this is exactly what I've been talking about with regard to placing judges who act as activists instead of apply previous precedents and constitutional scrutiny to cases that come across their desks. Finally we find a judge that doesn't let their political bias cloud their opinion.
We don't need activist judges, we need people that actually understand the intent that our founders had when creating our founding documents, but also are able to understand and apply previous decisions and logic to cases that are on their desk. Federal judges are supposed to be the people that protect the integrity of the constitution and strike down any laws that are unconstitutional and written into law by corrupt and overreaching government.