[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
This is laughable. The supreme court is not a political body that passes legislation. There aren't supposed to be liberal or conservative judges. There are suppose to be impartial judges that protect the consitution. They don't change it, they enforce it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they don't. You say so yourself later on in your own reply. They are human beings and their personal beliefs, i.e., "their" interpretation of the Constitution weigh in heavily on close votes.
That's why I think you need 3/3/3.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the supreme court is specifically there NOT to be a representative body of the people. That is what the president and congress are suppose to be. The supreme court is suppose to enforce the constitution. The purpose of the constitution is to say NO to the legislative body when it violates what the constitution says. We live in a constitutional democracy, which means it is not mob rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. What I meant was that the Court represents the people's voice in the interpretation of the Constitution, which is what many of us (those of who are Constitutionalists anyways) what our government to strictly adhere to.

[ QUOTE ]
Read Roe v Wade. Read the whole thing. The opinions, the justification, the dissents. You'll quickly realize one thing: these guys want abortion to be legal, even if it isn't in the constitution. If the constitution says that "the sky is blue", and a judge comes along and says from now on he interprets "the sky is blue" to mean "the sky is brown" it still says "the sky is blue" in reality. Judges have the power to make it say what they want and have that enforced, but that doesn't actually change the truth. Think for yourself. Read the actual bloody cases. Study the theory of constitutional law.

[/ QUOTE ]

"These guys want abortion." You're saying the Court wanted abortion, right? That's why I'm saying 3/3/3 and you don't get that manipulation. Or at least, it's harder to achieve it.