See, I happen to think that Souter is mostly right in terms of his judicial philosophy. Courts do, in fact, make law. That is and has always been their job.
But I also think that it's possible to hold to that judicial philosophy and still be guilty of completely making shit up which has absolutely no support in law or precedent, i.e. just because interpreting the Constitution at that level isn't a cut-and-dried proposition doesn't mean that you can do whatever the f*ck you want.
« Older NPR rolls out some innovative social media strateg... | The Feelies play David Bowie's... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt