Judicial activism is just another term for a power-grab.

Whenever someone grabs power, he always says he is doing it for a good purpose, with good intentions. But remember what they say about the road to Hell.

new Dusty?

Yuhp... still don't know why they don't stick with Classic Dusty.

Holy Shit! A Stilman man too? Jesus. Sometimes it just gets freaky coming here.

I fucked judicial activisim... like a pirate. Starting here, an interesting discussion with w/ a lefty at The Perfect World who insisted upon judicial interpretation that "best fits contemporary moral understanding." But he had no idea what that meant. Turns out G.K. Chesterton wrote an excellent essay long ago on stupid-ass notions of "morality" which perfectly describes the way the best and the brightest approach the concept.

That new dusty girl is the best ever.

ACK! I take it back, good from far, far from good.

Stupid butter-face. Sheeeeeet.

Ace, I'm having trouble sending you an email on your new account- can you shoot me a test email?

Ace, as a matter of constitutional law, your analysis is facile, even moronic. Allow me to enlighten you.

The common understanding of the foundig fathers was GOOD GOD! LOOK AT THAT NEW DUSTY!

What were we talking about?

butter face hell

i'd hit it like it owed me money

You'll have to take down the Dusty ad if you want me to concentrate on what you're saying.

I had Dusty when she was tight.

Oh yeah, we we're talking about strict constructionism. As far as I'm concerned, Dusty can get as strict as she wants with me.

Wait a minute. Must concentrate.

I had all sorts of interesting things to say about the close relationship between strict textualism and judicial restraint, and I'll be back to say them just as soon as I can stop thinking about the new Dusty girl.

Oh, yeah. Barcelona: excellent, funny film. Stilman, terrific director.

Later.

The sensual texturalism of Dusty's thighs cannot be reinterpreted at will. Those thighs mean something, and in those thights there is a possibility that is open to insertion only in the most drunken of circumstances.

Wait, what?

In my darker moments I wonder whether the Dusty girls are just photoshop creations engineered to change really sharp, interesting, smart gay people into big dumb hetero meatheads.

Speaking of changes, you've got to wonder why fans of the rubber Constitution are so afraid of them. If the eeevil Constitution-in-Exile Movement seizes control of the courts and starts overturning decades, DECADES I tell you! of settled law, shouldn't these guys congratulate themselves that our living Constitution continues to evolve?

Gents, like I said: butter face.

She looks like a garden gnome. Or maybe something even more sinister.

fat kid,

she has a face?

you think her knees are too sharp, too, i bet.

go check out yesterday's page3 girl, you picky fucker.

Damn you guys. I can't even pimp my little forum post without you talking about T and A.

Speaking of which, she do look fine. Butter face?

It's just not true that "Judical Review" can only be countered by constituional amendment.

1. The President is bound to "uphold the Constitution" -- not as interpreted by the Supremes, but as he/she sees fit. Lincoln, e.g., ignored Dred Scott.

2. If the Congress passed a bill that specifically declared itself comporting with the Constitution (and, in effect, over-ruling the Supreme Court) -- and the President signed the bill into law, I think this action by the two elected branches of the Government would effectively trump the unelected Judicial branch. If they grew some testicles, they wouldn't need an amendment