Sorry, but you're proving that even smart people can use straw man arguments. First, I do not know of a single conservative, NOT ONE, who wants justices to ignore the Constitution in order to advance our particular political views. NOT ONE. Second, A justice reading the Constitution and interpreting it faithfully is not committing an injustice against the Constitution, period. That even applies when they disagree with you, OK?
It's not in there anymore than legislating morality is in there. Why? Because that was the business of the separate and sovereign states, not 537 do gooders in Washington.
Yes. And here's where reading the article comes in handy. Mill and Durbin believe that not only the feds, but the states and local communities have no business legislating anything remotely connected to morality, and that they become tyrannies if they get anywhere near it. Meanwhile, the Founders (and Earley and I) recognized that freedom could not be absolute, and that some minor restrictions chosen by local democracy would be necessary.
And that's exactly what Alito, Roberts, and unfortunately sometimes Scalia will do. But that's what Republicans want.
I still think you're listening to Ted Kennedy. Be specific. Where did Roberts, Scalia or Alito expand federal power in such a manner?
Better speak with Justice Scalia and Justice Roberts then. The dissent in the latest case in Oregon was wrong. Justice Thomas dissented but for a different reason. Scalia and Roberts dissented based on the supremacy of the federal government in matters that involves the citizens of the respective states, a clear violation of Madison's intent (as outlined in Federalist #45)
Mill and Durbin believe that not only the feds, but the states and local communities have no business legislating anything remotely connected to morality, and that they become tyrannies if they get anywhere near it. Meanwhile, the Founders (and Earley and I) recognized that freedom could not be absolute, and that some minor restrictions chosen by local democracy would be necessary.
I understand Mills' view quite well thank you. I also understand the Republican party, as noted by the nomination of Alito and Roberts, intend for certain issues to be determined by the federal judiciary. Issues that are none of their business (see Federalist #81, even the worthless Hamilton could hit on the right idea now and again).
Where did Roberts, Scalia or Alito expand federal power in such a manner?
Most recent decisions? Alright
Scalia -- Gonzales v Raich
Alito-- US v. Rybar
And we'll not even discuss the reasoning the Executive Branch apparently has no bounds as advocated by Roberts.