The Wise Do Not Investigate Such Silliness.

Scalia Said The Court Had Pretty Much Signed On To The So-called Homosexual Agenda, Adding: Let Me Be Clear That I Have Nothing Against Homosexuals, Or Any Other Group, Promoting Their Agenda Through Normal Democratic Means.

Many Think It Not Only Inevitable But Entirely Proper That Liberty Give Way To Security In Times Of National Crisis--that, At The Extremes Of Military Exigency, Inter Arma Silent Leges. Whatever The General Merits Of The View That War Silences Law Or Modulates Its Voice, That View Has No Place In The Interpretation And Application Of A Constitution Designed Precisely To Confront War And, In A Manner That Accords With Democratic Principles, To Accommodate It.

Why In The World Would You Have It Interpreted By Nine Lawyers?

[if Critics Of The Pledge Of Allegiance Persuaded The Public It Should Be Changed] Then We Could Eliminate Under God From The Pledge Of Allegiance, That Could Be Democratically Done.

The Court's Decision Reflects The Philosophy That Judges Should Endure Whatever Interpretive Distortions It Takes In Order To Correct A Supposed Flaw In The Statutory Machinery. That Philosophy Ignores The American People's Decision To Give Congress '[a]ll Legislative Powers' Enumerated In The Constitution. They Made Congress, Not This Court, Responsible For Both Making Laws And Mending Them.