Replies

"'the court has staked out moderate positions, often in line with public opinion but not necessarily clear-cut.'

What does "public opinion" have to do with issues before the Supreme Court?"

It has to do with the fact that the author of the article wants to change the country in ways that are neither guaranteed by the constitution, nor popular enough with the populace to change via the legislature or via a new constitutional amendment.

So, instead, the author is in favor of morphing the branch of government whose purpose is to interpret law, into a cadre of philosopher kings who will contort law until it is in line with her ideology, so that the court can then make the social changes she wants without all that bothersome activity of trying to convince the populace of them, and without the bothersome task of thinking through why (might there be some good reason?) her pet projects were left out of the constitution while other things were put in.

Toward this end, the author will smear anyone else not similarly in favor of undermining both the power of the people's elected legislature and the power of the constitution (it becomes less powerful the more people decide they can twist or ignore it to get what they want) as "being out of line of public opinion" (or, alternatively, "wanting to turn back the clock", or the like).

(Yeah, I know your point was rhetorical... but the issue really gets my goat. It's Orwellian... they way they use "public opinion" to try to take powers AWAY from the public.)