[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Indeed, when we got a Bill of Rights giving every citizen the right to due process of law, to freedom of speech, and freedom of religion and so on, the only way that can be enforced is to give courts the power to overturn actions by the legislative or executive branch that impinge on those freedoms. And that's how it has to be enforced.

The irony is that those freedoms are rendered meaningless if judges get to define what everything means and what the outcomes are. In the name of protecting those rights she would destroy them and transfer all power to the judges. Having the right to make your argument does not entitle you to win the argument. Nor does it entitle you to never be offended. She wants judges to go beyond making sure all play by the same rules. She wants them to decide who wins and who loses based on their own idea of who should win and who should lose, rather than based on the law as written by legislators elected by the people via those protected rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. A judge is not supposed to have that kind of power. Her style of protection is total control.

[syriacus]

The irony is that those freedoms are rendered meaningless if judges get to define what everything means and what the outcomes are. In the name of protecting those rights she would destroy them and transfer all power to the judges.

Yes. Nice post!!