5. A lot of people are natural-born wankers and will never change.

Well, as an admitted "natural-born wanker," I'd like to think we can all change ...

Don't kid yourself. I've been on this planet for more than half a century, and I'm still as big a wanker as ever. You can ask anyone.

Heh.

You know what's helped me? Regestering as an Independent. Without an (R) next to my name, I can take a much more objective look at both parties. And they both suck, and suck bad.

But I've cut out literally dozens of blogs because I tired of the 'Rah Rah' mentality. I've also found I only need a handful of blogs to get the gist of the news and I can research those items that interest me. Otherwise, I simply want to be entertained.

Dance, armadillo, dance.

Or is this the wrong blog for that?

I don't care what anyone says, Queen Amygdala is the hottest Star Wars chick ever.

Seriously, thanks for this post, You put it much better than I did. You remain "a giant standing on the shoulders of a midget." :)

I agree that the filibuster deal has been blown way out of proportion. I've argued on a couple of blogs that it was tactically a good move for the Repubs to keep their powder dry pending a Supreme Court nominee. And I've been amazed at the vitriol with which this opinion has been received by some. It's just not that big of an issue, and neither side really gave up much.

That being said, the Commissar also deserves mention as a natural-born wanker of the first order. Gotta love a guy who rants at people for being ranters. From his blog:

"The Main Stream Bloggers have wholly failed us on the filibuster deal. They are a disgrace. Malkin, Kos, Krempasky, Josh Marshall, Captain Ed, Atrios, Hewitt, Kevin Drum, Powerline, and the rest have reduced themselves to narrow, knee-jerk partisan rantings. . . They are incapable of original thought."

C'mon Commissar, don't hold back, get tough with those wingnuts!

But the take-no-prisoners crescendo of outrage at recent compromise, combined with the incessant "mean-girls" sneering at political moderates, "mavericks" and party "traitors," is sort of repellent. Not to mention, politically self-destructive.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But just because a person has a party-line opinion on a single issue (as I do with judges) doesn't mean they "have value systems almost perfectly in step with the platforms of either party." It just means they have positions on one issue that line up with the party.

I have expressed plenty of opinions that don't agree with the Republican party line, and I have taken plenty of vitriolic criticism as a result. So don't tell me I am pandering to the Sitemeter gods when I support solid judges. (You're not saying that, exactly, but the Commissar is.) I have been talking about that issue for quite some time, and I feel very strongly about it.

I am disappointed that the Commissar questions my patriotism for opposing the filibuster deal. (Yhis is not John Kerry-style whining, either -- he literally does question the patriotism fo anyone who opposes the deal!)

I'm not sure why you and the Commissar seem so eager to guess at the alleged motivations of people who hold a certain opinion. Why not debate the merits of the deal instead?

I firmly predict that the big Compromise will result in many more judges being blocked. Whether that bothers you depends upon the priority you put on conservative (read: non-activist) judges.

I am willing to accept that you and the Commissar don't see solid judges as that great a priority. On that issue, you and I violently disagree. I see solid judges as the second most important priority in the country, after the War on Terror. You don't have to agree with me, but to question my patriotism (or agree with someone who does) does not strike me as terribly constructive.

Patterico,

As your comment indicates that you understand, I was not talking about you specifically.

And the Commissar's post(s) are flawed IMO, based on a bit of hyperbolic flourish (especially when applied to specific cases). Also, it would have been a stronger post with more argumentation for the compromise ... BUT ...

... he also makes some larger points that are very true, and which you fail to address, as your comments only defend yourself from the charge (understandably). In a manner, his assertion that many "Main Stream Bloggers" are placing nasty team sports over the good of the country is evident, I truly believe that.

And the reaction to this judges compromise is merely one data point in a trend line. Do you sneer at "RINO's" and "traitors?" If not, don't you know a hell of a lot of people that do?

BTW - I reject the concept that "conservative" judges automatically = "non-activist."

Great posts, both of them.

As someone who has no idea where they stand on the political spectrum I have noticed this problem and it concerns me. It is comforting that people with actual ideologies have noticed the great divide as well. Thanks!

I am sticking with the issue of judges, since that is one of my top priorities, and it's the issue that Stephen (whom I like a lot) chose as a vehicle to slander those who, like me, virulently oppose compromise.

If I hold these strong opinions on an issue like this, then it's easy for me to imagine that others do as well. So I think it's out of line to attack the Captain Eds, Power Lines, and Malkins of the world as insincere. I believe they are very sincere.

I am using "conservative" as shorthand for "non-activist." We could have a separate debate about the kinds of judges I respect, and why I think they are so important to the country. I'll simply give Scalia as an example of the perfect judge. We need a judiciary (and a Supreme Court) packed with folks like him. That will get us back to self-governance, rather than being ruled by the Platonic philosopher-queen Sandra Day.

Points well taken, though sincerity isn't in question. I believe that you have well-considered opinions on the topic, though I may not totally agree with them. To me that issue and the vehemence that it inspires is one of many that comprise the current binary bloodsport of political punditry.

Some fights are worth fighting. I think this is one of them.

I, for one, have been very clear on my position about judicial confirmations since the first days of my blog. Patterico has as well. I won't speak for the other bloggers that the Commissar named, but to accuse us of being incapable of original thought because we disagree with him on the importance of maintaining the Constitutional balance between the executive and the legislature is not only insulting, but it's a perfect example of the excessive hyperbole that he accuses us of exhibiting.

Rather than debate my posts, he rants that I'm an idiot. That's fine; that's his prerogative. That doesn't make his rant an argument. I have plenty of people who post comments on my site who disagree with me on this issue, and I welcome them -- I think Michael may be one of them. It's my "job" to convince them otherwise, but if I can't, I respect their opinion even when I disagree with it. I can't respect flamethrowers.

The Republicans ran on judicial confirmations being their #1 domestic priority, and then as soon as the session started, buried it under a mound of pork-laden bills while the press attacked their nominees as extremists. That not only was unfair to people like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown -- who couldn't publicly defend themselves without flushing their nominations down the drain -- but it betrayed the people who took the GOP at their word. Now, if I was the party shill that Stephen accuses me of being, I'd hardly be telling people to stop contributing to the NRSC until they set things right. I'd be making excuses for their lapse in leadership.

One last thing, Bill, and I mean this in a humorous sense only -- don't you find it just a tad bit ironic that you take us to task for team-mindedness in a post titled, "Ditto"?

Perhaps I'm just a partisan hack, but I tend to notice a rather large difference between the left and right wing blogospheres. For the most part, I find the so called "right-wing" blogoshpere to be more inclined towards a classically liberal or libertarian perspective that holds little regard for the old right realpolitik as well as the legislating of morality. In this regard, I think the blogosphere has had the positive effect of drawing the Republican party —and the right in general— towards the center as well as marginalizing the hard line Buchanan and Faldwell elements of the Right and showing them for the fools they are.

Meanwhile, I find the so called "left-wing" blogosphere to be much more inclined towards the post-Vietnam/68 style of liberalism, as well as given to a degree of demonization, anti-humanism, and weaving of conspiracy theories that is quite disturbing in its prevalence and wide spread acceptance. In this regard, I think the blogoshpere has had the exact opposite effect on the Democratic Party and leftist ideology. Just look at the power a nut-job like Kos wields...he is directly responsible for Howard Dean's appointment as DNC head and we can all see how that assignment is turning out.

The Republican Party has always had to pander to the religious Right as it base, but thanks to the blogoshphere, there is a new demographic that it has to take account of. Of course the Democratic Party had a new demographic to take account of as well...

One last thing, Bill, and I mean this in a humorous sense only -- don't you find it just a tad bit ironic that you take us to task for team-mindedness in a post titled, "Ditto"?

Sure. Except, other than the Commissar, I can barely think of anyone else who is on my "team."

You've got a bench like the Yankees.

Let's see what the old alcoholic bastard has to say:

http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=120374

'BTW - I reject the concept that "conservative" judges automatically = "non-activist."'

Absolutely correct. Witness the now-discredited concept of "substantive due process" used by conservative justices to dismantle important elements of FDR's New Deal. Which prompted FDR to propose the infamous, but unsuccessful, scheme to expand the Court in order to pack it with liberals. A constitutional crises was barely averted.

I think that Jason's comments are spot on -- which might be part of the explanation for the blogosphere's gang mentality towards moderate Republicans. The strong libertarian streak running through the right-wing blogs leaves little tolerance for the feel-good BS or social conservatism that in some ways would be more at home on the left. It often also leaves the door shut to alternative ways of accomplishing conservative / libertarian goals.

Take education, for instance. I'm hard-pressed to find a blogger that supports No Child Left Behind, despite the fact that it's a perfect example of using government to achieve conservative ends (passed when the Senate was controlled by Dems, hence the lack of universal school choice). The GOP already tried dismantling the Dept. of Ed. and it didn't work -- might as well go a different route and work at removing the feds from education in a different way.

Anyway... great comments. I'm with you, even though I'm just as guilty of making snarky comments on occasion.

MichaelM: "Witness the now-discredited concept of "substantive due process" used by conservative justices to dismantle important elements of FDR's New Deal."

If you read some of those old Justices' opinions, you will find a lot of wisdom.

Half Sigma:

I've read them, and there was a lot of wisdom. Doesn't change the fact that these activist conservatives were usurping a constitutional role that was assigned to the legislative branch. For the most part, the due PROCESS clause today is construed as being limited to matters of judicial PROCEDURE. It is not used as a pretext for second-guessing the wisdom of the legislature (now, the Equal Protection Clause used for that purpose, but let's not get started on that).

If we're going to condemn judicial activism, we should be consistent.

But the take-no-prisoners crescendo of outrage at recent compromise...

It is exactly here that you cross a line you have to right to cross. There was a general and admittedly valid point being made in the entire previous portion of the article, then this logical fallacy is thrust 'pon us, that if the general point is worthy, it must be applicable to the specific case of "the deal" as well.

Without going into details, (it would be endless, n'est-ce pas?), there is an aspect of the deal which is infuriating, and I personally think there is a legitimate case for "sacrificing" Chaffe or McCain. But excuse me for still denying the charge-- I was fully against tossing Arlen Specter overboard or splintering the party despite my personal disgust with the man's mouth.

IOW, in this specific case, my own specific reasons for applying "both barrels" are made specifically, and are not negated by admitting the general point made in the article above. Against those specifics, the article makes no rebuttal whatsoever, but concludes that I must be wrong because the general point made seems reasonable.

No.

Comm:The Main Stream Bloggers have wholly failed us on the filibuster deal

Kos is mainstream? What does "mainstream" mean, again?

Bill:BTW - I reject the concept that "conservative" judges automatically = "non-activist."

I don't. "Conservative" absolutely implies that policy be left in the hands of the voters, that judges not decide for themselves what the constitution should mean, that judges are unexciting interpreters of existing precedent, not spiritually enlightened gurus writing legislative history.

At a minimum, I think I speak for a large percentage of conservatives whose desire in an SC is only that they interpret, not legislate. If policy remains in the hands of legislatures, (ergo voters), we will be more than happy. I could not care less if a judge on the SCOTUS is a registered Commie/Green/Huffington supporter-- if he restricts himself to the maximally possible unbiased interpretation of law, I will kiss his feetsies.

Witness the more congenial attitudes towards abortion legislation in Europe-- there, it was the people who decided. "When voters lose at the polls, they feel defeated; when they lose by judicial fiat, they feel cheated." And rightly so, I think.

Michael: Witness the now-discredited concept of "substantive due process" used by conservative justices to dismantle important elements of FDR's New Deal.

Ok... when was that exactly? It reminds me of the too frequent rebuttal to complaints about Islamic violence by screaming, "The Crusades!!"

It's not about being a Republican, it's about being a conservative. Why shouldn't conservatives try to promote their philosophy (by electing conservatives or by criticizing liberals) in their own party?

I don't. "Conservative" absolutely implies that policy be left in the hands of the voters, that judges not decide for themselves what the constitution should mean, that judges are unexciting interpreters of existing precedent, not spiritually enlightened gurus writing legislative history.

Except when it came to miscegenation, sexual proclivities (and I'm talking about private behavior, not public institutions), popularly legislated state assisted suicide law, saving PVS patients from the rulings of a state legislature and judiciary, etc.

Revisit the "tyranny of the majority" concept. Conservatives believe that any law not enumerated in the Constitution is constitutional. I say that that's hogwash, and my view has nothing to do with the liberal judicial activism that effectively legislates environmental issues via interstate trade laws and the like.

Karol -

That's a good point, but a couple exceptions:

1. When conservatives or liberals fail to criticize their own for hypocrisy, misdeeds or something they might otherwise disagree with, that's strictly playing a team sport.

2. Some issues that draw the gangpile aren't either very clearly "conservative" or "Republican," just as fewer and fewer liberals are really "liberal."

I'd also say that I think that form counts for a lot, and continually milking predictable outrage out of every situation seems like ... well ... look at Bill O'Reilly.

Except when it came to miscegenation, sexual proclivities (and I'm talking about private behavior, not public institutions), popularly legislated state assisted suicide law, saving PVS patients from the rulings of a state legislature and judiciary, etc.

Not completely following you here.

I am in favor of gay marriage and against sodomy laws. But I am against judges reading such policy preferences into the law when they're not really there.

I was also in favor of the Schiavo law, though I was disturbed by the aspect of it that restricted it to one person (a change required by Democrats, not Republicans, btw). Without meaning to reopen that entire debate, I don't see what was so radical about simply providing federal review to ensure that no federal rights were being violated -- like we do with criminal cases, and notably with death penalty cases.

I would also strongly oppose impeaching judges for applying that law incorrectly, even though I do think the analysis of most of the judges was wanting.

I am in favor of gay marriage and against sodomy laws. But I am against judges reading such policy preferences into the law when they're not really there.

Well, at the risk of rehashing a can of worms, it shocks me that "strict, strict constructionists" think that it's perfectly Constitutional for any legislature to make laws as fine and oppressive as where consenting adults can put their hoo-has in the privacy of their own home, totally rejecting the concept of "negative rights," and the "right to be left alone."

Frankly, I think that it's un-American. And hell, I think that the 50 words in the preamble cover that concept. And there are plenty of institutions and laws not specifically enumerated in the Consitution that have been found to be unConstitutional, and that conservatives would certainly not fight to restore.

Not to mention issues that are selectively extrapolated to "intent of the founders" rather than a literal interpretation of the document. For a conservative flip-flop, contrast the literal interpretation vs. "intent" interpretation of the second amendment's "right to keep and bear arms," with the literal interpretation vs. "intent" interpretation of the first amendments establishment clause with regard to compelled prayer in public institutions.

But, in a way, isn't this very post the kind of "positive reinforcement" you mentioned in your first point?

And don't you criticize people who stray from your own belief of what's appropriate or right, even if that doesn't necessarily follow a Republican or Democrat party line?

But, in a way, isn't this very post the kind of "positive reinforcement" you mentioned in your first point?

(Comment truncated) You must be unaware of who tends to read this site.

As for this ...

And don't you criticize people who stray from your own belief of what's appropriate or right, even if that doesn't necessarily follow a Republican or Democrat party line?

Yes. But as my above comments note, I also believe that it's about form and consistency. How is it possible to maintain stewing outrage over every reliable "team" point? It's ridiculous.

The compromise is one of the most disgusting political acts I have witnessed since McCain-Feingold. We see seven Republicans trashing the Constitution and we are asked by some to appauld this as an act of political wisdom and courage? I do not comment on the Democrats because they buried it in the 1930s and have no know loyalty to it.

Worse than this is it would take a far greater optimist than I to believe this solves anything. Will anyone bet that we will not see another filibuster before the next Congress?

I would like to see genuine cooperation between the parties but not at the cost of thrashing the constitution.

But Bill O'Reilly needs controversy to get ratings. He isn't a conservative (I've read both his books, nothing conservative about him), he's just a talking head.

I think plenty of conservatives criticize Republicans for not being conservative enough. That's definitely the case in terms of the compromise. They feel sold out. It's not about being partisan, it's about defending the party that best represents you from becoming as you wouldn't like it to be.

Well, at the risk of rehashing a can of worms, it shocks me that "strict, strict constructionists" think that it's perfectly Constitutional for any legislature to make laws as fine and oppressive as where consenting adults can put their hoo-has in the privacy of their own home, totally rejecting the concept of "negative rights," and the "right to be left alone."

Frankly, I think that it's un-American. And hell, I think that the 50 words in the preamble cover that concept. And there are plenty of institutions and laws not specifically enumerated in the Consitution that have been found to be unConstitutional, and that conservatives would certainly not fight to restore.

I don't like such laws, but I am not aware of any specific reason that states can't pass them. If it's really un-American, you'll see fewer and fewer such laws. We don't need judges to get rid of them.

Not to mention issues that are selectively extrapolated to "intent of the founders" rather than a literal interpretation of the document. For a conservative flip-flop, contrast the literal interpretation vs. "intent" interpretation of the second amendment's "right to keep and bear arms," with the literal interpretation vs. "intent" interpretation of the first amendments establishment clause with regard to compelled prayer in public institutions.

The criticism would be more effective if you pointed to a specific judge who advocated a specific contradictory position. If you're just talking about a bunch of yahoos who aren't judges and what they think, that's fine, but I can't get too excited about it.

Karol -

He isn't a conservative (I've read both his books, nothing conservative about him), he's just a talking head.

Well sure, you're right, he's an obsessive "populist." I really just meant the formulaic outrage portion of his schtick.

I think plenty of conservatives criticize Republicans for not being conservative enough.

This reinforces both my main point and highlights a flaw in my post;

1. "not conservative enough" validates my point about a general anathema for moderation or any compromise.

2. The flaw in my post is the misleading statements about "party line." That wasn't necessarily meant to signify "GOP."

I will maintain that the ideological self-reinforcement and need for speed of the blogosphere spur further polarization and groupthink, and inhibit moderation and detached analysis in certain circles. The, uh, legal analysis of the blogosphere during teh Schiavo case was a pretty dismal example.

And the detached nature of online communication makes outrage a whole lot easier too.

Patterico -

The criticism would be more effective if you pointed to a specific judge who advocated a specific contradictory position.

No, I'm talking about conservatives - many well-known bloggers and "yahoos" that you know - that use selective argumentation about "strict constructionism" and "judicial activism" for different issues. I wish I had some cites handy, but I don't - the examples I give above ("intent of the framers with regard to the role of religion in government" vs. "intent of the framers with regard to the role of the right to keep and bear arms as a component of a citizen militia") are Constitutional issues that have fairly standard conservative treatments, vacillating between literal interpretation of the text and interpretation of the "intent" of the text, all under the mantle of "strict constructionism," that I find somewhat contradictory from an honest intellectual standpoint.

I will maintain that the ideological self-reinforcement and need for speed of the blogosphere spur further polarization and groupthink, and inhibit moderation and detached analysis in certain circles. The, uh, legal analysis of the blogosphere during teh Schiavo case was a pretty dismal example.

Maybe for some, but I thought I had a pretty good legal analysis that proved that the tube should have been re-inserted. The crux of the argument, based on a reading of the case law, was this: clear and convincing evidence is a *federal* constitutional standard, requiring the federal courts to conduct the appropriate analysis to ensure that the federal standard was met.

I continue to think my analysis was sound. I took about 300 comments on that thread, and only one (an equal protection argument) even began to challenge my analysis in any significant way.

Patterico -

I'm discussing trends, you're discussing you. :-)

Unless you had a torch and a pitchfork (and I didn't monitor your coverage), doesn't necessarily apply to you. Overall, certain quarters of the blogosphere represented a mob making rather sweeping proclamations that would have large repercussions beyond a singular case. Let's just say that I've (almost) never been compared to a heartless Nazi so much in one week, and that was simply because I was skeptical that due process wasn't served and raised objections.

And these weren't fringe "yahoos," either.

Frankly, I think that it's un-American. And hell, I think that the 50 words in the preamble cover that concept.

You gotta be kidding. Take a deep breath, and turn down your rant mode.

Do you really want to empower the Supreme Court to invalidate legislation as "un-American" based on the penumbra of the frigging preamble to the Constitution.

Of course not. I didn't think so. I mean, you're an idiot, but not a total moron.

This illustrates what is so wrong about Roe v. Wade. I'm personally OK with the result, but I'm not OK with the way it happened. State legislatures were well on the way to making legal abortions available within an easy drive for most American women (as opposed to flying to Sweden, the alternative for rich kids at the time). The Supreme Court speeded up the process, but at great cost. As an exercise in legal reasoning, the opinion is nearly a joke. And the Court's stature suffered incredibly due to it's intervention in a political issue.

So what if Missouri would never have legalized abortion? It takes half a tank of gas to get to Illinois.

My "voice" was nothing close to "rant mode." It was actually light. "un-AMerican" has a serious point behind it, but was also a light comment.

Otherwise, I'd give you a detailed answer about how I feel about the concept of penumbras, negative rights and the "freedom to be left alone" (standards of libertarian-leaning judicial scholars), but I'm too busy being puzzled over why you're calling me an "idiot," in what's been an otherwise good comment thread.

I'm too busy being puzzled over why you're calling me an "idiot," in what's been an otherwise good comment thread.

Well, I guess I didn't recognize your "light" mode, so I went into rant mode.

We're intellectually both sympathizers with the "freedom to be left alone." Of course I don't think it should be illegal to buy a condom, a problem the Supreme Court decided to fix for us.

Our difference lies in the fact that the "freedom to be left alone" is nowhere expressed in the Constitution. Not even impliedly, not even in the preamble, not even in penumbras. And I don't trust the Supreme Court to fix the Constitution whenever they deem it necessary. So, unless we're willing to fix the Constitution in accordance with constitutionally prescribed procedures, I think we should count on the legislative process to address such an issue. It may take more time, it more take more effort than paying a few ACLU lawyers, but it is ultimately more conducive to promulgating public acceptance of the rule of law in the long term.

And I think that respect for the rule of law is the foundation upon which democracy rests. Without it, democracy degenerates into the sort of thugocracy that presently exists in Russia, for example.

Which is a long-winded way of saying: sorry for the "idiot" remark.

Fascinating discussion, although it seems to have strayed pretty far afield, perhaps out of sight of the point.

President Bush has nominated reasonable judges. They are not, obviously, the same judges a Democratic president would have appointed, or Bill would have appointed, or I would have appointed, for that matter. But neither are they Ann Coulter, or Roy Moore (the Alabama 10 commandments guy), or Pat Buchanan, etc.

The question is whether a minority of the Senate should be allowed to block the Constitutional process on the pretext of demonstrably absurd and contrived charges, and a tissue of easily exposed lies. I don't think you can separate the outrage against the compromise/sell-out/media event that legitimized this behavior from the outrageousness of the behavior itself.

If President Bush were nominating knuckle-dragging Neanderthals with a record of willful disregard for the Constitution, the law, and individual rights, there would be no outrage, in fact there would be no need for a filibuster because such people would not garner majority support.

As for the broader discussion, it is precisely because the standards the Left rallies around are perched so precariously on a teetering edifice of judicially indefensible opinions that they cannot accept the prospect of qualified jurists who do not march in lockstep to their tune taking seats on the bench.

It started with these corrosive decisions (Roe being the most pernicious) that have no articulable basis in law or the Constitution. What we are seeing now, and what was perhaps inevitable once result-oriented jurisprudence became fashionable, is that one corrupt decision requires many subsequent abasements of democracy to defend. The recent compromise is only the latest example, and is more galling because a small clique of narcisstic, media-hungry politicians have now (to nourish their own vanity) made the party of conservatives complicit in this odious travesty. Forgive us if we don't offer up our acclamation on cue...

z: "Conservative" absolutely implies that ... judges are unexciting interpreters of existing precedent, not spiritually enlightened gurus writing legislative history.

B: Except when it came to miscegenation, sexual proclivities (and I'm talking about private behavior, not public institutions), popularly legislated state assisted suicide law, saving PVS patients from the rulings of a state legislature and judiciary, etc.

Sorry, I'm not following you. If you're saying that you have a plethora of examples where conservative judges have ignored process and legislated from the bench, that it's possible to be conservative in politics yet be activist as a judge, then yes, I agree that it's possible.

While possible, it is also something inherently at loggerheads with itself-- it is an odd-fish. Whatever examples you may have up your sleeve, (?), I reiterate: I want judges who interpret, not legislate, and I feel extremely confident that that's what most conservatives want as well.

I have "faith" in the people-- if the few remaining anti-sodomy laws (as if we're busy enforcing them) are truly absurd, then fine-- they can be repealed at any time by a wide majority who will elect and pressure their legislators.

If that is a time consuming and strenuous procedure, so be it. Far better that, than having one branch of government, almost completely unanswerable to the electorate, subsuming the powers meant to be reserved for the other two branches.

B: Revisit the "tyranny of the majority" concept.

Ok. The "tyranny of the majority" is a disingenuous whine coming from those in the minority of a democratic body, exampli gratia the current Senate. As far as citizens, the Bill of Rights protects individuals, and therefore protects any group of individuals, including a minority group*, against the so-called "tyranny of the majority". If those rights enumerated ever need adjustment or addition, then there is a specific procedure delineated for amending the Constitution. Allowing judges to take their own personal shortcuts in amending the constitution is not acceptable.

*except smokers.

B: Conservatives believe that any law not enumerated in the Constitution is constitutional. I say that that's hogwash...

"Not enumerated"? I can't be exactly sure what you mean, but it seems like you want to have it both ways. Surely the Constitution matters, except when Bill thinks it's just a matter of common sense?

Any law is constitutional unless the constitution says otherwise... er... yes, by definition. Right now I feel like I'm trying to tie knots with air.

I don't mean to be dense, but I'm really having trouble with the way you express your points. Maybe nobody is still here anyway.