Annoyed Framers try to whack sense into O'Connor

[Guest Vyce]

Oh, come on. She just provided the swing vote on a major gay rights case, you can't possibly be that upset with her.

She provides the swing vote on a LOT of things.

 

She's no favorite amongst my kind.

 

Therefore, I found this news item incredibly hilarious.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I just don't think it's up to the Supreme Court to decide sodomy laws. That should be up to the states.

Our society is quickly banning discrmination based on sexual orientation. The SCOTUS is just cleaning that up in the government.

They aren't supposed to be cleaning things up in the gov't. The court is supposed to intrepret the constituion, and really make very view rulings.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Not necessarily true. While Marbury v. Madison set the precedent for judicial review, there is nothing that says the Supreme Court cannot behave as they have been recently. In fact, being the top appellate body in the nation, one could argue that it is their job to do so.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Well the Marbury v. Madison ruling is almost argument enough that the court does have the right to rule on cases like this. It's just my opinion, that the court couldn't of known what kind of cases the court would be hearing 200 years later.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

True, and your argument is by no means odd. A lot of people have been upset with recent courts about their particular activism.