It Would Also Be Strange To Find

The Virtue Of A Democratic System With A [constitutionally Guaranteed Right To Free Speech] Is That It Readily Enables The People, Over Time, To Be Persuaded That What They Took For Granted Is Not So, And To Change Their Laws Accordingly.

It's A Long, Uphill Fight To Get Back To Original Orthodoxy. We Have Two 'originalists' On The Supreme Court. That's Something.

[the Freedom Of Information Act Is] The Taj Mahal Of The Doctrine Of Unanticipated Consequences, The Sistine Chapel Of Cost-benefit Analysis Ignored.

To Allow The Policy Question Of Same-sex Marriage To Be Considered And Resolved By A Select, Patrician, Highly Unrepresentative Panel Of Nine Is To Violate A Principle Even More Fundamental Than No Taxation Without Representation: No Social Transformation Without Representation.

More Importantly, The Court Forgets That Ours Is A Government Of Laws And Not Of Men. That Means We Are Governed By The Terms Of Our Laws, Not By The Unenacted Will Of Our Lawmakers. 'if Congress Enacted Into Law Something Different From What It Intended, Then It Should Amend The Statute To Conform To Its Intent.' In The Meantime, This Court 'has No Roving License ... To Disregard Clear Language Simply On The View That ... Congress 'must Have Intended' Something Broader.