- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,357
- Reaction score
- 29,640
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
The hell it doesn't. Some of its decisions have tortured the meaning of this or that part of the Constitution beyond recognition. Its substantive due process decisions in general have involved the justices in substituting their personal views for the constitutional text. The Court itself commented on that very problem in at least one decision, in effect saying it recognized it had been guilty of excesses in the bad old days of the "Substantive Due Process Era" from 1904 to 1937. But it had conveniently forgotten about all that, at least outside the context of economic regulations, by 1973, when it once again went on a SDP bender in Roe v. Wade.
In other words "they don't rule the way I want them to for certain cases so that means they are "rewriting" the laws". It is bull****.