"Frank" wrote in message ...
C J Campbell wrote:

snip

The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
number of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of
the general public, to create a right where none had existed before.
Now,
these judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees.
They answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the
laws or the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want.
I
happen to think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.

This is a red herring. Judges rule on cases brought before them. This
whole
'activist judges' argument makes it sound like these guys are making it up
in traffic court.

To be honest, I think some of them are.

But I think in controversial issues such as abortion or homosexual marriage,
it would be nice if judges were relying on some sort of law. Abortion in
particular was declared a constitutional right without any precedent
whatsoever, no written law to support it, and contrary to what was public
policy and all legal precedent before it. It is no wonder that a significant
portion of the population was outraged.

Similarly, much of tort law was created out of thin air by judges who defied
all precedent before them and who by fiat simply invalidated many state and
federal laws without even bothering to claim a constitutional right. The
harm that did to the aviation industry, among others, is very well known.