Monday, June 29, 2015

Just wondering

If judicial "legislators" can create new rights out of whole cloth, what's to stop them from limiting or eliminating traditional rights through legalistic legerdemain?

Judicial retention elections represent one promising approach to the increasing radicalization of the Supreme Court (and other federal courts). Senator Ted Cruz explains.

Also see this piece by Kevin D. Williamson who positively nails it:
In the matter of the so-called Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the law must not say what it in fact does say because it would be better if it were not to say what it says and were to say something else instead. In the matter of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court rules that the law must say what it does not say because it would be better if it were to say what it does not say instead of what it says. Which is to say, the Supreme Court has firmly established that it does not matter what the law says or does not say — what matters is what they want.


bruce said...

And what SCOTUS want is determined by the fickle fashions of the time.

rinardman said...

Yeah, bruce, it seems the Constitution has been replaced by facebook & twitter.