In an earlier post, I compared the nominations of Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Judge Robert Bork in order to make some observations about the role of stare decisis and its relationship to judicial activism.  My argument was that a respect for the wisdom of past practice and a preference for incremental change will allow Judge Sotomayor to avoid being tagged as a radical jurist unworthy of confirmation.  In contrast, Judge Bork had a record that left him vulnerable to such a charge (even if unwarranted).  Also worthy of mention here is Professor David Papke’s earlier recollection of Professor Bork in the classroom.

In the discussion that follows, I will continue to use the Sotomayor/ Bork comparison in order to draw out the manner in which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment threatens to undermine the very philosophy of constitutional interpretation that is most closely associated with Judge Bork.

Opponents of the Sotomayor nomination have seized on the Second Amendment as an issue with which to attack her.  Portraying her as an opponent of the constitutional right to own firearms is a strategy that will certainly succeed in energizing the base of the Republican Party.  If she rises to the bait during her confirmation hearings, and expresses any skepticism over the correctness of the District of Columbia v. Heller case – striking down the DC handgun ban– then efforts to paint her as a liberal jurist who is out of the mainstream might gain some traction with the public.