Who here wasn't guilty of that in, say, the Kelo decision on eminent domain?
Well, to say that you don't agree with the results of a decision and the laws that pertained to the decision -- is not the same thing as saying that the judged was stupid or wrong or interpreted the laws incorrectly.
Those are two different matters.
We've got a system, here in this counntry, with the three branches of government are balanced off, the one against the other. And where one branch is arriving at the wrong results we, as citizens can act to change it. The "given" which is necessary for this change to happen -- however -- is that a sufficient enough majority agrees with you that it needs changing. If that isn't the case, then you're plain out of luck no matter what you think is right or not.
So, I just go by the process, as it is..., and say that if something needs changing, then we do it as citizens. If we can't get enough citizens to agree with me that it needs changing (enough to make a difference and get it changed) -- then obviously, I don't have a strong enough position to get it changed -- and in this society, I have to live with those results, then.
That's the society that we live in...
So, if the judge was wrong, he'll be overturned. If he wasn't wrong, then it will stand. If the decision was right, but the result is not what the sufficient majority of the public wants, then they will change it. If they can't get it changed, then they don't represent a sufficient enough majority to make their changes (that they want) effective and so -- they have to "live with it"... and so it goes...
The case was appealed from a decision by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in favor of the City of New London. The state supreme court held that the use of eminent domain for economic development did not violate the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The court held that if an economic project creates new jobs, increases tax and other city revenues, and revitalizes a depressed urban area (even if not blighted), then the project qualifies as a public use. The court also ruled constitutional the government delegation of its eminent domain power to a private entity.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider questions raised in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) and later in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).[2] Namely, whether a "public purpose" constitutes a "public use" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". Specifically, does the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see main article: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights), protect landowners from takings for economic development, rather than, as in Berman, for the elimination of slums and blight?
The decision was widely criticized.[3] Many of the public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession construe the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.[4] "Federal appeals court judge Richard Posner wrote that the political response to Kelo is "evidence of [the decision's] pragmatic soundness." Judicial action would be unnecessary, Posner suggested, because the political process could take care of the problem."[5][6]
In the Kelo case saying I don't agree with the results is equal to saying the judges interpreted the law incorrectly. The law in that case was the Constitution.