"Mom! Little Hitler's on the computer again!"

I also love how some on this blog seem to be more concerned about the condition of scumbag, subhuman terrorists being detained in federal facilities than they are about winning the war on terror.

Kinda gives us an idea of where their loyalties lie, eh?

How many convictions came out of gitmo?

Why are you not fighting terrorists?

What have you done for the war on terror, you stupid shitheel? Pointed at some Mexican family while yelling "TERRORISTS!! THEY HAVE A BOMB!!" at the bus station? Why don't you do something productive before posting all smug and proud on a website. Oh, I guess you can't, because you are a pathetic waste of life. Just kill yourself now, and save all of our time.

The Supreme Court (as well as the Senate as originally designed) was supposed to be one of the two great rocks of stability in our government. The founders realized that popular sentiment swings dramatically in short periods of time, and design both to temper the enthusiasm of the masses.

Hate it all you want, but it does serve a valuable purpose. Think of how nasty politics would become if you could rewrite the Constitution every 2 years (with a change in the House).

You are a cocksmoker

I'm more of a patriot that you are.

Our Constitution favors Conservatism

Justices on the left also said that the way Florida was recounting was unconstitutional. So much for partisanship there, eh? Bush won on every recount, you simply don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Every time the Supreme Court comes out with a decision that is contrary to popular sentiment, there is a great outcry about “activist judges,” “liberal judges,” “conservative judges” - not to mention a general call to “reform” the courts, or do away with them altogether. Such criticisms are hardly justified. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a more staid group than those that make up the federal judiciary. (One does not get ahead by espousing radical ideas, one way or the other, about the law, witness the failed confirmation of the appointment of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.)

Given the role of the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) in the system of checks and balances provided in the Constitution, an independent judiciary is essential, for it acts as a curb against the encroachment of government on individual rights and liberty. Under the constitutional provision for separation of powers, federal judges are not supposed to be subject to political influence in fulfilling the court's role. A federal judge, who serves with life tenure on good behavior, can wield great power; which is why it is important to appoint “qualified” persons and not just political ideologues to the federal bench. That is why federal judges are appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate and not elected.

Our courts are the great levelers, for all men stand equal before the law. But while we are a nation of laws and not men, it is men who administer the laws and mete out justice. Most state judges are elected officials, and others appointed by executive authority; and there are few whose judgments are not influenced by politics, whether it be associated with getting reelected or avoiding impeachment from office. To make federal judges accountable in this way would turn the federal judiciary into courts of popular appeal, which is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.