=== The point of the Left's wholesale adoption of judicial legislation is to advance elements of their agenda they could not get via the legislature. Consider, for a moment, that American abortion law is considerably more "liberal" then most of Europe.
We should probably stay off abortion as an example since it's actually the right's agenda. Only the Republicans have put in writing that legal abortion is "vital" to our national defense at home and abroad.
If either your or jwalsh could just explain to me how the Supreme Court is supposed to be bound by the Constitution where the States are not, that would help.
I just get the impression that -- for whatever reason -- some believe states have the right to curtail or limit the "inalienable" even as they dream up additional rights. The Supreme Court steps in, depending on who's the most powerful politically (hint hint), and picks and chooses which State actions it will morph into federal law.
Once upon a time I talked to the Texas legislative director for NRLC for a couple hours and we touched on a man's right to save the life of his unborn child. "Bring us a case ... we need a case" he says.
Imagine how stupid I felt to learn that a man named Loce had brought such a case years prior in New Jersey. Mother Teresa and Dr. Lejeune, even, had filed amicus curiae briefs. But the Supremes just refused to hear it. Refused.
I don't much see the point of a Supreme Court which cherry picks its cases and concentrates primarily on dreaming up new rights and curtailing the old ... as test-driven in the various states.
I also don't understand the point of a Judiciary that doesn't "change with the times" per the "will of the people" if, indeed, we are now a Democracy.
That's called judicial activism.