[isthisnickcool]

Pointing to the example of campaign finance, Breyer also said the court was right in 2003 to uphold on a 5-4 vote the McCain-Feingold law that banned unlimited donations to political parties. Acknowledging that critics had a point in saying the law violates free speech, Breyer said the limits were constitutional because it would make the electoral process more fair and democratic to the little guy who isn't tied to special interests. "You don't want one person's speech, that $20 million giver, to drown out everybody else's. So if we want to give a chance to the people who have only $1 and not $20 million, maybe we have to do something to make that playing field a little more level in terms of money," he said

Gosh! What a statement coming from a man that at times is the single swing vote on so many things. He wants to protect the little guy from the big guy while in reality Justice Breyer is himself the 300 lb. gorilla mandating his way of thinking upon the whole country. He's the unlimate "big guy", the person who all by himself is super "powerful". He is so powerful that he can throw out his own employment agreement (The US Constitution) and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

[Aetius]

Yeah, the hypocrisy of this guy is amazing. I also like how he talks about encouraging 'democratic participation', but only of course if democratic action will result in the outcomes he and the Left desires. Otherwise, the people and democracy be damned, as with abortion, Establishment Clause cases, and soon, marriage.

And talk about needing a judiciary to accomodate an 'evolving society' is a joke. As a good Sup Court justice has pointed out, all you need to accomodate such evolution is a willing populace and legislature. Then you can have all the new 'rights' that you can win the votes for. The problem for the Left, of course, is that society has not evolved to their way of thinking on most hot-button issues. If they had, then there would be no need for our judicial masters like Breyer to step in and impose so many new bogus rights. But since the public rejects things like abortion on demand, and gay marriage, then Breyer and his gang must enlighten us rubes.

So what we are really talking about is the evolving values of a select elite in society, not the overall society itself and the people who comprise it. It will be interesting to see how Breyer and his gang justify the imposition of gay marriage/civil unions when they finally get around to it in light of how the majority of states have now explicity rejected gay marriage. What 'evolving standards' will the High Court point to to throw out these democratic actions?


I'm really think that the only way to truly end judicial activism is to successfully challenge judicial supremacy. That would require the other branches of govt to disregard and refuse to enforce the Court's particularly bad decisions. I don't see any other way to deal effectively with an out of control judiciary. But since I also don't see such defiance from the President, Congress, and the states, actually happening, then I am afraid that there will be no end to judicial supremacy.