1. Comment on the following statement. Refute any wrong piece of information and/or unconvincing argument.

"Over the past thirty-five years, every appointment for a new supreme court justice has consistently been the subject of contentious debate. Part of reason was that we frequently had a situation in which a retiring justice who had been appointed by a Democratic (or a Republican) President was replaced by a new justice appointed by a President of an opposing party (E.g. a justice appointed by Ronald Reagan was to be replaced by a justice appointed by Barack Obama). Only those replacements of this kind have made a difference in the Court's jurisprudence. The rest didn't change anything."

What is "the compelling interest rest" or "strict scrutiny" and how such test/standard has been applied to cases concerning the free exercise of religion clause?

Why should the Constitution (as it was proposed in 1787) have been rejected? Make two best 'anti-federalist' arguments.

Can someone help me with this please?