Mona Charen echoes my thoughts on Scalia.Since Those comments are in the archive, I’ll drag out a line of it. I said:

“Scalia’s anger is because of judges who are not judges, but rather are acting as “passionate advocates”. Ginzburg comes to mind as a prime example, as does, alas, Day-O’Connor.”

So, Mona says:

“….his wrath grows out of frustration for a majority that consistently refuses to restrain its overmastering desire to become a legislature — no, a super-legislature, since Supreme Court decisions on constitutional questions cannot be overridden except by constitutional amendment.”

Well, there IS time and a second hearing for overturning such things. What, after all, was Brown, but an overturning of Plessy? For that matter, what is Lawrence vs. Texas other than an overturing of Bowers v Hardwick?

Are we now to assume that the Constitution doesn’t matter?

By the way; Add to your “Required Reading” for the summer, Mona’s book, “Useful Idiots”.
I’m finding it very worthwhile.