Well, those of us on the right knew exactly what kind of justice Roberts would be.

Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas: Turning the judicial clock back to 1888.

Gunnin' for 1802.

Hope your not a minority, woman, or non-land owner, 'cause you won't get to vote anymore...

Hmm . . . Somehow I doubt it.

You seem notably lacking in a history education. We passed a few constitutional amendments via the legitimate legislative process. Which I'm all for.

It's the courts taking it upon themselves to de facto amend the constitution to say what they wish it did that I oppose.

Fortunately, those of us on the left know that Bush will never get another Roberts or Alito past the Senate again, and the next president will be a democrat.

Oh, I see, you only want to turn things back to 1802 for stuff you agree with. The genie in the bottle would have a heyday with you...

Conservative fantasies are creepy... (mostly because the involve a naked Ray-gun)

Clark_Kent:

Fortunately, those of us on the left know that Bush will never get another Roberts or Alito past the Senate again, and the next president will be a democrat.

Based on the ages, it is unlikely the Liberals can do anything but tread water (4 most liberal justices average 74 years old, 4 most conservative 60).

It's about time the Constition will be interpreted instead of legislated. Turn back the times? GO ROBERTS! Go America!

And you were exactly right as all of us objectors were arguing at the time. Congratulations!

If Scalia doesn't retire at the end of the term,* historically (and this included the end of the Warren Era) it was hard to replace a justice at the end of the president's term. So, one should address the post's point ...

If a Democrat wins in '08, the liberal wing might very well be reinvigorated with new picks. And, two of the five conservatives are over 70. They too are no spring chickens. On some issues, as shown by a ruling this very day, Kennedy votes libertarian ... might do so a bit more often with the right pick in '09 or '10. "Treading water" is not a horrible move when you aren't that far from the shore.

-j

* Thomas isn't go to retire anytime soon and Kennedy is at the height of his importance, so is unlikely to as well.

Yeah, wouldn't it be great if we could go back to the pre-1802 pre-Marbury v. Madison jurisprudence? Then we could avoid all of those other adaptive and pragmatic decisions like Roe and Brown. Awesome. Or could it be that dynamism has been around for 200 years and in all the most important decisions because it's the right choice? Could it be that the "meaning of the Constitution" has only ever been what the Justices say it is (good or bad) and that there are hundreds of cases developing the meaning of the words "due process"?

How about this, I'll give you conservatives your States Rights if you all go to Texas and leave the free world alone. Then you can hand down all the inconsistent and myopic decisions you want. Wiki Court Packing Scandal if you want to see what happened to the last backwards conservative bloc.

The Chemist:

Oh, I see, you only want to turn things back to 1802 for stuff you agree with. The genie in the bottle would have a heyday with you...

Conservative fantasies are creepy... (mostly because the involve a naked Ray-gun)

No, I want the LEGISLATURE to decide what changes to the law to enact. I want the courts to ENFORCE those laws, not make up their own.

I'm all for change. I would appreciate the freedom to decide what changes to enact via the democratic process.

[How about this, I'll give you conservatives your States Rights if you all go to Texas and leave the free world alone. Then you can hand down all the inconsistent and myopic decisions you want. Wiki Court Packing Scandal if you want to see what happened to the last backwards conservative bloc.]

Tell you what. How 'bout you let us red-staters have our red states, and you blue-staters have yours? That's a lot more then Texas.

Of course, that would require the federal courts to give up their self-annointed roles as supreme authorities over all of life. Which would mean I would win after all, right?

What I believe the (liberal) Court(s) are often doing is not legislating but applying the constitution to new facts and new situation, and, yes, taking the ideas and ideals of democracy even further, and as intended by the Founders to be done. I do not think that the Founders thought or believed that they knew it all or had it all figured out, and that, in fact, they were marking down the ideals of a new nation, not rules demarcated by the words used alone, never to be interpreted differently than they would be interpreted by those who lived in and were bounded by the world of 1787.