And the Right condemns the so-called 'liberal' judges for being 'activists' or people ready to bend and twist the words in the document to suit their particular point of view at that particular time in history. I suspect, at least in the last 30 years, that the number of cases where the court had to go out of their way to find a way to interpret the Constitution to fit their needs at that particular time, that it would be the Right-side of the court which went there more often than the Left. Beside 'Bush v. Gore' take a close look at the 'Citizens United case' where they based part of their decision on a mistaken entry in the description of a case which reversed the intent of the ruling 180 degrees. So now we have accepting a clerk's mistake made over 100 years ago as precedent for a case before the court today. If that's not "finding in it or in previous case law the single nugget around which the court can marginally justify its policy choice to keep up the pretense of actually caring one iota about the Constitution in the first place.ā€¯ I don't know what is.
For more information about the infamous 'Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad' case, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
OCU
| 