His answer on precedent is a little scary, but I think if they could ask him a more pointed question it might be clearer.
I believe that, if we are talking about the interpretation of a law, the judge, even the Supreme Court, should follow previous interpretations of that law from previous court cases, even if that interpretation is at odds with what they think the law means.
That would be prudent, because if the legislature disagreed with how the court had interpreted the law, they could have changed it -- therefore, since they haven't changed it, they must like the way the law is working, and having judges simply change what the law "means" would be activist.
HOWEVER, if the court ruling was to prohibit the legislature from acting, based on a bad interpretation of the constitution, a new judge should NOT give the same weight to that precedent, since there was no way a legislature could have corrected a misinterpretation.
So, a precedent on the civil rights act of 1964 set in 1970 should be considered settled law, but Roe V. Wade should not.
Changing Supreme Court justices is the only way we can fix mistakes in interpretation of the constitution, so it has to be OK for justices to throw out previous rulings.
For those who say we can change the constitution, it doesn't matter -- if the court can get the current wording wrong, or ignore it, they will be able to make the same mistakes or interpretations on any amendment we make.
If "no law prohibiting free exercise" can mean "laws prohibiting exercise", and if "for public use" can mean "for private development", and "shall not be infringed" can mean "regulate and restrict all you want", what words could you possibly put in that couldn't be made to mean whatever an activist judge wants.
This law is not subject to judicial review.
Article. III.
Section. 2.
Clause 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
His answer is fine. It is something that we would have gotten from Rehnquist.
Note that this article fails to select some interesting quotes he also said in the same statements that say the juciciary must be restrained etc.