Replies

The courts have always made unpopular decisions. I would argue that that is their function. I'm sure that after Brown v. Board of Education there were lots of segregationists who made the same arguments you guys are making now. The judges don't represent you because that isn't their job, their job is to interpret the constitution.. Now I'm sure you'll say that "congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech" was completely ignored by the SCOTUS in the recent CFR case. Well, the Courts have always found reasonable exceptions regarding certain constitutional issues. The 1st amendment doesn't guarantee one the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, or to slander, or libel. The courts looked at "no law" and added "except" to the end of the amendment. Were they wrong in those cases? I don't think so..

Secondly, if you're objecting to the Texas v Lawrence sodomy case, the courts did, in my opinion, have constitutional grounds to strike down that law, based on prescedent. It has been the opinion of the courts for a long time that there is an implied right to privacy in the words of the fourth amendment, so it would definitely apply to one's consensual bedroom habits..

You miss the point.

The point is that the words of the constitution say only so much. They should not be extended or shortened to accomodate someone's political desires. Thomas Sowell said it neatly yesterday, to the effect that it really doesn't matter if you like or don't like campaign finance reform when the constitution says "Congress shall make NO LAW (that's NO, NADA, KEIN Law)....abridging the freedom of speech." That is clear. Congress, on the other hand, DID MAKE A LAW that abridges freedom of speech.

The courts are now POLITICAL institutions. They should have to suffer the fate of political bodies; that is, they should have to stand for election.