7/20    To emarkp or whomever was making the comment about the judicial
        arm of the government being mainly interpretive, you're basically
        wrong. Since we live in a common-law country in reality much of
        the basis of day-to-day law as it exists today was created through
        the courts. The legislature and the executive branch can't be
        bothered with figuring out every little detail of law. Courts have
        traditionally been a font for much law, and much legislation is
        based on recommendations by commentators, such as the MPC and
        the UCC. Also, if you ever bothered to examine the constitution,
        it's a pretty short document and is merely a framework to
        setup our national government. The guarentees codified in the
        Bill of Rights were actually rather unnecessary, as they reflect
        English subject rights which were assumed to be part of common
        law. In fact, codifications such as the 2nd Amendment have caused
        nothing but trouble. There is a fiction amongst laymen that
        there are "strict constructionists" vs. "liberal interpretists",
        but in reality it probably is more accurate to view them as
        being essentially individualists vs. statist. The law is hardly
        a static thing, and even the simplist codifications are open
        to endless interpretations and expansions.
        \_ Indeed?  You are a very misguided man.  It is very interesting to
           me that you think a common law conception is enough, and
           codifications 'cause trouble.'  By your own dichotomy you would be
           a statist.  In fact, I suppose your entire post can summed up as
           'I am a statist.'  -- ilyas
           \_ I suppose your entire posting history on motd can be summed
              up as 'I am a moron'
              \_ You know, kais motd is entirely unreliable as far as
                 determining the exact identity of posters, but it is useful
                 for noticing trends sometimes.  Whenever you see a post like
                 that one of the people on the attribution list is a member
                 of the wall liberal goon squad.  Odd, that. -- ilyas
                 \_ Meh, not really.  That clique is pretty active on both
                    wall and motd, it seems.  The fact that they get picked up
                    by kais scripts shouldn't be surprising, especially
                    considering the variety of ways people use to view motd
                    in various editors, etc.  Perhaps you're just being overly
                    sensitive, esp in light of how badly you get treated here
                    and, apparently, on wall.
        \_ My comments were limited to SCOTUS--I wasn't addressing the entire
           judiciary.  Your assertion of "fiction" is ridiculous IMO (see, I
           can make assertions too!).  The constitution was written to limit
           the powers of government.  SCOTUS should interpret the constitution
           with that in mind.  I guess that means I'm "originalist" or
           "textualist" as well as "individualist". -emarkp