So in your mental map of the universe you wouldn't find a justice appointed by a Republican president voting for something like ... say .. "gay marriage" or Obamacare? Perhaps even casting the deciding vote? There may be a gap between your thinking and current events / history.

If the court found it legal before what would have changed? Nothing. Easy decision for them.

You should probably look into the question of the court forcing the Justice Department to alter applications for warrants. That is far more common than outright rejection. Applications for those warrants are inches thick. Do you think they like to redo them? Do you think they'll just slap some nonsense together just to see if they can slip by? If you think that you probably don't have any insight into the legal system, or the professionalism of judges and lawyers as officers of the court. Why would those jobs be highly competitive and credentialed if you can just slap some nonsense crap together and get by?

So are you thinking constitutional amendment, constitutional convention, a vigorous letter writing / lobbying campaign, or ... cough *armed insurrection* cough?

Is the straw that broke the camel's back for you Citizens United, Obamacare, gay marriage, NSA collecting phone records, or warm beer?

BINGO!!

They are ordinary judges that serve on a rotating basis on that court. They are selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The judges who preside over America's secret court

Hatred for America? How do you think that plays out between findings for gay marriage versus findings that allow continued surveillance against terrorism?

When you find an extra tough, virulent, deadly bacteria, don't let the damn thing get loose!

It would be great if that were true, but it probably isn't in the long run. Children don't have to consent to lots of things that happen to them now. There are other societies that have or have had child brides, so there are obviously social mechanisms to enable that. With diversity and immigration policies brining in more and more people from those societies I wouldn't be surprised if they considerably outnumber the gay population now. That is before you even consider traditional pedophiles. Over time advocates for minor-adult sex will have more political power. Speaking of political power, I hear there is a former Speaker of the House paying millions in hush money over sex with a minor decades ago. Besides, there are 50 years of prep coming to enable it, academicians working on normalizing minor-adult sex now, just as there were people doing that for homosexuality decades ago. In some parts of society, such as Hollywood, powerful people are known as child abusers, and nothing is said. Fifty years ago homosexual marriage couldn't happen. Today child marriage "can't happen," but that isn't likely to remain true as things stand. Standards were destroyed to enable homosexual marriage, they won't magically reappear when needed to stop child marriages.

It's activism if you are distorting the meaning and intent of the amendment to reach a desired end by illegitimate means, by intellectually dishonest means.

The Supreme Court did something similar regarding the understanding of the amendment intended to define slaves as full citizens of the US. They stretched that so that anyone born inside the US now is automatically a citizen, even today, so the US is practically unable to control its citizenship that unlike (IIRC) pretty much every other country. Congress's intent was clear, but that didn't stop them.

So are you in for child brides too? There are people in the US that want that. Actually we'll probably end up fighting that battle in 50 years or less.

Speaking of bull .....

You should try rereading it, perhaps slower. Maybe then you will catch the rebuke he is giving to other members of the court.

The phase you are looking for is Liberty, which had a constraints to it. The US is heading further along the road of license, something abhorred by the Founders. You should really look into the distinction.

The problem is a lack of serious commentary about the right, not a lack of serious contenders. Pretty much any of the many governors running would be a better overall choice than either Clinton or Sanders. Some of them would be far better.

Might I suggest the same to you? The Federal government hasn't exactly always been a shining light itself. How many states waged Indian Wars? Any thoughts about the existence of black regiments in the Army? There may be a few more examples....

I'm pretty sure that 10-20 people doesn't constitute a meaningful portion of the religious experience of the US. And not all government officials are all sweetness and light in their treatment of members of America's religious communities.

There isn't much Christian in "Christian" Identity.

I think you've just demonstrated the wisdom in this quote:

I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University. - William F. Buckley, Jr.