Well the court wasn't any better on that issue than the legislature, so what's your point? Besides, that is an issue that the Constitution is not silent on. Like...Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. Only, the keystone court of self appointed kings couldn't even common sense their way into seeing that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ADBRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
My point was to contrast with Ann's line about "silly laws". She was saying that it was a "common-sense" approach that made judges become activists, throwing out "silly laws".
I was pointing out that in fact the justices DO need to throw out silly laws that violate our constitutional rights, and that often a "common-sense" reading of the law and the constitution yeilds the CORRECT answer.
Using "common-sense": Would you read the 1st amendment and by common-sense determine that you COULD stop people from talking about candidates in the months before the election? No, that make NO SENSE. Common Sense is the antithesis of NO SENSE.
That was my point. I want somebody making a common-sense reading of the constitution and applying it as it was written, in a common-sense way. Not trying to find prenumbras and eminations. Those most certainly are not "common-sense" things.