You're saying that judicial restraint is a bad idea because it hasn't worked well in gun control. Instead of reasoned legislation we've seen "special interests rushing in" and making policy. First of all, you could make the same argument about democracy in general. Any time you leave any policy decision of weight to legislatures, special interest groups are going to have a lot of say. So on your argument, we might as well let a committee of dictators decide everything. Of course, that's absurd. But putting that aside, is the premise even true? Are our gun control policies, such as they are, bad, and is that due to special interests? It's a highly debatable proposition. In the first place, we don't even know that gun bans reduce crime. D.C's tried one and I don't see any evidence that it's worked. In the second place, if there really is an individual right in the Second Amendment that the Court has just failed, up to now, to recognize, what's wrong with states voluntarily complying with the Constitution? Nothing, of course. Finally, even if we accepted your entire argument, is there any lesson that's applicable to the question of whether the Court should practice activism or restraint in general? Clearly not. It varies from case to case. In the case of abortion, I think it's fairly obvious that the Court was wrong to judicially settle an issue that the nation is split on. I'm not saying that a post-Roe debate on abortion would be terribly reasoned or wouldn't be totally dominated by pro-life and pro-choice interest groups, but ultimately each state would come to a decision that would reflect the values of its inhabitants. In the case of, say, the death penalty for minors, I don't happen to agree that one doesn't become fully morally responsible until the age of 18, but there isn't a big national outcry to execute 17-year-olds, even if there wasn't really any national consensus that doing so constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Whether the Court is right to take an activist or restrained approach to a certain issue depends, in my view, on how strong a textual or precedential argument can be made to go activist, and how hotly debated the question is. In the case of Roe, there's very little textual basis for the ruling, and half the country disagreed. In the case of homosexuality, there's more of a textual basis for, at least, an equal protection argument, and there aren't many Americans who believe you should be thrown in jail for same-sex sex. In the case of applying equal protection to the federal government, or reverse incorporation as it's sometimes called, there's absolutely no real textual basis, and in that sense reverse incorporation was an incredibly activist doctrine, but everyone today agrees that the federal government shouldn't be allowed to racially discriminate.

OK.

Why dont we lay off individual/state issues and concentrate on the FACT that our federal government is eliminating, not only our personal rights, but our states rights as well?

What will it take to understand that the few own the many in this republic?

We must change this... we could learn much from our European bretheren...

Although they are clouded by a form of fascism we have yet to experience, their socialistic system keeps them free of the stresses of our system and should be considered, before we al pay the price for the .001% of the people that control our present system of commerce!

It is time to wake up people!...

Let us do our forefathers proud... This may be our last chance...

The future is up to NOW!!!!