Read the September issue of Harper's to see how completely absurd the concept of "strict constructionism" is. (Sorry, no link yet.)
Some key points:
- It's not clear that "the constitution as originally interpreted" meant that it was orignally meant to be interpreted the way it was originally interpreted. Anyone familiar with making contracts that have unforseen bugs in them knows this is a stupid idea.
- The idea, that say, the 14th Ammendment was written to disallow affirmative action ignores the, er...original intent of why the 14th Ammendment was added.
- Nobody but the most extreme of right wing extremists would favor things such as not paying women equally for equal work, or having state run churches, or having legalized discrimination at the state level. These are things near and dear to the folks like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, but they in no way represent most Americans' views.
- On reading the article, you cannot come away with the conclusion that the intent of these judicial extremists is to actually subvert justice.
Read the article.
Also, get the August issue and read "None Dare Call it Stolen." (Nice summary here. And here too.)
As Krugman reminds us of the 2000 election problems, and the unconscionable political interference by the largely Republican court, I would say the bigger priorities facing the US are bringing liberty and justice here.
Nobody can seriously, with a straight face say we're "liberating" Iraq when we're not liberated at home.