[wardaddy]

perfect clarification...thank you....the last paragraph was what I liked to hear

[Iwo Jima]

Look at it this way. The Supreme Court's job is to enforce the Constitution. Justices should be VERY ACTIVE in doing their job They should strike down unconstitutional laws with a purple passion. Aggressively, enthusiastically.

If someone does not believe in this philosophy, they are not competent to hold they office.

They should not be substituting their judgment for what the constitution says. The complaint against such improper behavior is not that they are "active," but that they under acting unconstitutionally.

Respect for orderly process and settled legal doctrine does cause reasonable constitutionalists to shie away from incessant reversals of what is/is not constitutional. But if a decision is constitutionally wrong, it has to be corrected. Orderliness cannot trump the constitution.

My test for Supreme Court nominees would be "Would you vote to overturn Wickard v. Filburn?"