Alito to DiFi
Feinstein questioned him on Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, the same issue she pursued with Roberts. She asked him about his dissent in U.S. v. Rybar, in which Alito said Supreme Court precedent meant that a law barring possession of machine guns was unconstitutional because Congress had failed to delineate the source of its authority under the Commerce Clause or make “findings of fact” on how the Commerce Clause applies. Alito essentially repeated his dissent for Feinstein, declining to go any further.
“All that I was looking for was some evidence that the possession of a machine gun . . . had a substantial impact on interstate commerce. . . . That’s all the Supreme Court precedent [Lopez] required. That’s not a very heavy burden.”
