However, sometimes natural rights interfere with each other, such as freedom of speech vs. freedom for public safety (yelling "fire" in a theater). For this, we have the Supreme Court to balance those rights through the rulings they make.
Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.
As for “the only people who whine and cry”…: To interpret is to tell the meaning of something. If we ask the courts to interpret the word “dog” into Spanish and the court, being dominated by cat loving dog haters, tells us that it means “el gato” (the Spanish word for cat), they have clearly, and intentionally, not interpreted the word “dog”. Now, if this court is the final arbiter on the Spanish and English languages, they have superseded the previous meaning of the word and created a new definition.
This would be de facto legislation because only congress has the power to create new words or redefine old ones. It would be a different story if there were numerous Spanish words for dog and the courts didn’t choose the one I preferred.
So, in summary, when a judge knowingly misinterprets, redefines or creates something new where there was nothing, in an effort to affect an outcome that is contrary to what the constitution clearly says, that is an act of legislating from the bench and, as our friend danareah has so eloquently pointed out already, those judges should hang up their robes and go run for political office.
No actually it is a Republican vs. Democrat issue. During the pre-9/11 period of the Bush Presidency, the Democrat minority did nothing but stonewall all of Bush's judicial picks.
President Ronald Wilson Reagan-Greatest president in my lifetime!
YO DEMOCRATS, BACKSTAB THIS!
I take it that you think that freedom of speech applies only to speech then, and not expression? That one could yell "bomb under my seat" in a darkened movie theatre too? It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech".
So, making a law against hate speech is unConstitutional, right?
substantive due process. It is part of the 14th amendment. This is also true when applying any form of the bill of rights to states.