CHAREN: Supreme benchmarks

After the recent Supreme Court decision on internationalizing the U.S. right to habeas corpus, one can assume that "evolving standards" means international judicial standards influencing the U.S. justice system. Therefore we must assume that the national consensus he was referring to must be a nation other than the U.S. Let us not forget the international nature of Global Warming (or Global Governance - Chirac) founded in consensus science and evolving toward a non deterministic, blame everything on "Climate Change".

When one cherry picks facts to convienently fit your conclusion one can prove almost anything. Take the above for instance. One Supreme Court case is cited out of a docket of over 80 to prove liberal robed justices rule roughshod over the country. The vast majority of the other cases of course were settled by large majorities but get no play here because they don't support the argument. Only the cherry picked decision gets mentioned. If this is the type of reasoning that passes for thinking in reactionary right circles no wonder they denigrate college educations so vehemently. Such an education actually teaches you how to see past these types of false arguments. As far as I can tell such arguments play well on the radio and short commercials where the limited attention span and education of the reactionary right supporters are easily confused. The rest us however can still think.

Unfortunately, the framers didn't anticipate the tyranny of the swing vote. It is time to amend the Constitution to make any ruling of the Supreme Court reversible by a bill approved by two-thirds of the legislature and signed by the President.

I think kc missed the point. Then kc cherry picks to try and make a non-point by referring to "other cases". When we start applying "evolving standards" to constitutional law, we end up making policy from the bench while rendering the Constitution useless as the guiding principle it was meant to be. We reserve the elected branches of government for policy decisions. The Founders already provided for allowing "evolving standards". We of the uneducated reactionary right with our limited attention spans call it "elections". Oh, and kc, that is in The Constitution.

I think I clearly see the point. The reactionary right has pounded the idea that somehow there is a tyranny of the courts running roughshod over our elected representatives. This is of course nonsense and citing one case out of over 80 reviewed by the Supreme court to support your contention is a false argument that people like RDH lick up like it was cream instead of pablum. The idea of evolving standards is a tricky one. Clearly our founding fathers wouldn't approve of the idea. However they were just men not gods to be enshrined and reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Except of course on the reactionary right where reasonble minds, or at the least reasonable arguments, seem not to exist. The Supreme Court is the final arbitor of exactly what the Constitution means. Since the Supreme Court is composed or people we can count on the exact meaning changing over time, just like people. Like it or not it is so.