I know. When you have nasty people like that in charge, you end up with things like the conservative majority violating the Constitution in order to steal a presidential election for their compatriots. (runs for cover.....)
No, I don't like Al Gore. I was just making a point I've made before. People scream judicial activism ("rewriting the Constitution") for decisions they don't like, and then turn around and claim those same nine "venal, self serving lawyers" did the right thing when they agree with the decision.
Don't forget, when you're screaming activism, there's always millions of others applauding the decision, and vice versa. Just realize that under our system, what they say is Constitutional is by definition Constitutional, no matter how much we may cry. Besides, I think those people know a lot more about Constitutionality (and they have lots of clerks to help them) than any of us will ever know. Well, I'm not so sure about Clarence Thomas.
"Precedent, or case law is not law at all for two entities in our judicial system. Two entities in our system are unbound by the doctrine of stare decisis. Do you know which entities those are?" If Congress doesn't like the way case law went, they can make a new law to get around it. Think of cases such as Communications Decency Act (AKA Internet censorship law). It was called too vague and overbroad, so Congress came out with Child Online Protection Act (AKA CDA II) to get around that.
Of course, the Supreme Court has reversed the precedent of itself and lower courts on several occasionas. Still, some precedents are so tight, and have been supported so many times, that there's little chance of a reversal ever happening because of the whim of current politics.