That one person can strike down the valid voice of hundreds of thousands who exercised their part in democratically choosing to pass a law that upheld their deep moral beliefs is truly frightening to anyone who values the democratic process. A judge can't declare an amendment to a state constitution to be federally unconstitutional when the Constitution does not mention or protect the so-called "right" that is allegedly being violated.
Piecing together disparate and irrelevant statements from previous Supreme Court and appeals court decisions in order to disingenuously coat judicial activism with the thin veneer of contrived legitimacy is the true violation of the constitutional rights of millions of people.
- Jay Evensen: Legislature's pornography...
- Ralph Hancock: The anti-establishment delusion
- Jonathan Johnson: The truth about sales tax...
- Barack Obama: Religious freedom keeps us strong
- In our opinion: Internet sales tax should...
- In our opinion: National security and the...
- My view: Mayor Biskupski deserves to build...
- Richard Davis: Why do I serve?
- In our opinion: National security and... 74
- Is it time for our first woman president? 55
- Robert J. Samuelson: The false charms... 54
- Jay Evensen: Legislature's pornography... 30
- Barack Obama: Religious freedom keeps... 28
- Ralph Hancock: The anti-establishment... 19
- Letter: Hillary and FOIA 18
- Letter: Coal and job creation 18