I've blogged extensively on a number of recent decisions. Take a look. This was not the time or place for a comprehensive analysis (and I agree that specifics are appropriate for a more scholarly venue--I haven't noticed much of that here, or on most boards). You are also correct that my posting reflects outrage, although an outrage born of knowing the law and something about judicial process. And the ability to recognize when pap about "judicial modesty" is bullshit. (My own view is that such "modesty" is appropriate in some settings and legal contexts and not in others--a longer conversation.) For the most part, I think the Warren Court was right not to be "modest" in trying to repair the failings of American democracy (as with desegregation and reapportionment and many areas of civil liberties). The problems it was addressing were not themselves modest.

Of course every judicial era has its supporters and critics, and what one sees depends on where one is looking from (and the spectacles one is looking through). Judicial action at the level of the Supreme Court necessarily implicates values, and, in some sense, politics. (Politics can be "high" or "low", and recently have been pretty low.) I have fairly low tolerance for those, including Justices, who pretend otherwise, especially in grossly misleading/dishonest nomination hearings/performances. In that sense, I'll admit a grudging admiration for Robert Bork's honesty about his views during his hearings. (Those views, imho, justified voting against him on their substance; others, of course, can and do differ). His behavior since his failed nomination makes me more sure now than I was then that his nomination should have been defeated.

On substance--to be very brief--I favor those true to the reconstruction of our political community through the promises of the post-Civil War amendments--particularly the due process and equal protection clauses (and privileges and immunities of citizenship, which never got very far) of the 14th amendment. That includes fuller realization of the democratic promise of American life (particularly through robust civil rights and liberties of natural persons) and greater inclusivity of our society, with a real commitment both to equal opportunity and tolerably decent outcomes for a dignified life for all. It also includes judicial response to non-self-correcting flaws in the functioning of our democratic machinery (Carolene Products fn 4 for the lawyers out there)--such as some version of one person, one vote representation, and--I would argue--some attention to curbing the abusive and corrupting influence of money in politics.

I acknowledge a spectrum of respectable views on the relative roles of the judiciary and the explicitly political branches (whether they are truly democratically accountable is a trickier question at present) on some of these issues. But that's a much longer conversation.

Finally, I don't think the members of the Court who violated their principles to select Bush president in 2000, or who dissimulated mightily (if they did not in fact commit perjury) in their nomination hearings, merit more respect than I accord to them. Through their actions, they have forfeit the respect that their institutional positions might otherwise call for.