I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.
Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.
And, I think that Boo really meant "twist the Constitution to mean whatever I want it to mean at some moment in time" rather than "redefine."
It is just for intemperate times such as these, with radicals on both sides that we need a strong supreme court to insure that the country is not ruled by the tyranny of the majority.
[QUOTE=washunut;1058674376the country is not ruled by the tyranny of the majority.[/QUOTE]
I am not even sure votes are even counted these days. 200 European bankers dish out the orders these days.
When the SCOTUS oversteps its bounds then the Congress should reign it in. You aware of a concept called checks and balances, right? Why is it that only the court is privileged to exercise a check?
Strong Supreme Court = one that exercises illegitimate legislative authority. Example - see expansion of Commerce Clause; see Kelo; See Roe's majority finding new rights in the shadows, pernumbras, etc of amendments. It's otherwise called invention.It is just for intemperate times such as these, with radicals on both sides that we need a strong supreme court to insure that the country is not ruled by the tyranny of the majority.
If there was never any doubt about these things, nothing would ever go to court and there would be no need for judges. I don't say judges are superior in any way, but that it is their role to resolve these things within the law. As language is not as exact as many like to think, this means sides will argue what the meanings and the lines are. And one side will present a winning argument at the time that convinces the judges that it fits or doesn't fit within the law.
And that's not activism or twisting, but how the system works.