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.
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.
Well..., you've got a real big problem -- with that definition you gave... LOL...
If you say that you believe that Supreme Court Jutices in their decision interpreted the Constitution wrong -- then your definition (of what happened) gets you absolutely nowhere.
That's because the epitome of "explanation" for what the Constitution means in theory and in practice (of real life) -- is -- a decision by the Supreme Court.
NOW..., I say that the more effective "understanding" for what is going on -- is rather -- that the judges did decide right, but the "outcome and result" of the decision is not the outcome and result that you desire.
Therefore, you act in such a manner as to change the law (and/or the Constitution) to get the desired result the next time the case comes up again...
That's the more productive way of dealing with it.
Of course, that's the way to deal with it -- that's built into our entire political system.
The way you're describing it, will only degenerate into incessant complaining and nothing will get done, except the complaining (especially, when you're referring to a Supreme Court decision).