Over at Powerline, Assjet has a few words in defense of Cornyn's apparent belief that Brian Nichols is an activist rebel struggling against a runaway judiciary (and not an accused rapist and murder who wanted to escape incarceration).
Our disagreement with activist judges isn't based only on the fact that they're liberals and we're conservatives. More important, it's based on the fact that our Constitution didn't establish the Supreme Court as a super-legislature, appointed for life, charged with nullifying popular opinion when it conflicts with more "sophisticated" sentiment. One can imagine a government so structured, but it isn't ours, and it wouldn't be a democracy. Those who try to turn the judiciary into a legislature--but an unaccountable one, that never has to stand for re-election--can hardly complain when electoral passions begin to swirl around judicial appointments.
In other words, it's not even the judges faults, per se, but, rather, the Constitution's:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...
You see, what Buttmissile knows (but wants you to ignore) is that the Constitution gives power to the judiciary all the power over the interpretation of law. What Cornyn, DeLay, et. al, want to do is destroy the Constitution. Period.
You see, the Constitution works like this: Article I sets up the legislature, which writes the laws. Article II sets up the presidency which approves and enforces the laws and writes treaties. Article III sets up the judiciary which interprets the law and (after the Bill of Rights was tacked on and Marbury v. Madison was decided) guarantees that they are Constitutional. The legislature works directly for the people in the sense that it is the voice of the majority and all its decisions are decided in the manner of majority vote. The presidency is the international face of the nation (in deciding treaties) and the first step in appointing people to offices executive and judicial. The judiciary, however, is unique in that it most often must focus directly on individuals.
Inside the American courtroom is the only place where the majority does not and should not rule. This is the brilliance of the Bill of Rights and the judicial system. Even if every person in the nation voted to take away, say, my right to free speech, the Bill of Rights says they can't do it. That's why we allow federal judges to serve on the bench without fear of losing their position. It further separates the choices of the majority from their decisions, making them unlikely to bow to political pressure. What pisses Not-Very-Subtle-Phallic/Anal-Reference-Nickname-Boy off is that this often prevents conservatives from imposing the kind of mob rule they seem to prefer.