[you want the majority to have final say as long as it's the same as YOUR say. ]

Ummm . . . On what do you base this charge?

[we've been through this before. you posit the same lame oh positions over and over and throw out ad hominem attacks at "you libs" when the term doesn't even apply. you assume stances on views that we aren't even discussing and you expect to be taken seriously. no. sorry. you are divisive and your stance in reference to this thread is simplistic- something i would expect from a school bully.]

Hey doofus, the article I posted in response to was discussing "liberal consitutional theory." I never accused you of being a liberal. I don't have the first clue who you are. I was responding to the article.

[i'm not in favor of an oligarchy, either. but that's what we have already. only it's laughable that you act as though the judges are the ones captaining this ship. that's just part of the far right's disinformation campaign, and the only ones who buy it are idiots and you guys. you'd be taken more seriously if you actually attacked the real oligarchs in our country- the corporate elite-]

Hmmm . . . How exactly do you define the "corporate elite," and how do they form an oligarchy? And what does that even have to do with the subject of whether or not judges can pull new "rights" out of thin air?

[truth is that people like you and him evidently don't know what conservatism in the traditional sense actually means, because today's conservatives have gone far afield from where the ideology began.]

Then by all means, enlighten me, genius.