I am going to point out here the following. The founders of our constitutional government were well aware of the Greek state democracy. When the majority leaves off it's restraint, they become abusive to the minority. The republican form was deliberately chosen to limit the tyranny of the majority and force a national consensus. The judiciary is not the place for reinterpretation of the law but in the minds of many this has become the place to change law. The proper place is in the legislature and not at the judicial bench. If congressional representatives are not doing their jobs in changing law that should be changed, the ballot box is the proper place for the corrective and not the judicial bench. A constitution that can be changed on a whim of a judge makes a governing document of no consequence and sends us down either the direction of a tyranny by dictatorship or lawlessness neither of which I want to see. Packing the court to push an opinion rather than judges that are supposed to hew to a standard is the base of the current argument. I won't be drawn into debate here, but we need a restrained conservative set of judges at all levels to protect us all from the malefactor and excesses of the legal system against the small guy. If law needs changed, it needs to be done in the legislature! Go vote your preference.
Interesting, maybe. How about the tyranny of majority in the senate? Why are there 400++ bills sitting in Moscow Mitch's desk collecting dust? Why was Obama shafted with his nominee? Because they could! Tyranny of the majority.
Reinterpreting the law happens all the time, it is relative to where you stand. There are no absolutes, maybe death.
Changing laws in legislation? Another tyranny of majority. Supreme court interprets laws all the time. Why to 80++ 5-4 decisions?
Why conservative judges? Is that a reflection on something?
While changing the constitution is not easy it happens, sometimes fast other times slooooly.
What was prohibition about? Who pushed that agenda?
