[jyl]

Getting OT from the thread, I guess, but I don't see the courts as having a top-down judicial agenda.

When I think of all the things the government does that makes me angry, that infringe on my privacy, that waste my money, that are just plain stupid - 99% of them are done by the executive and legislative branches, and 1% by the judicial branch.

The courts spend the vast - and I mean vast, 99.99% - of their time handling the usual sort of cases that never make the press. 0.01% of the time they get stuck with a high-profile, controversial case - whether it be Terri Schaivo or OJ or whatever. However they decide those cases, there's always some politician in front of a camera trying get some airtime by attacking the decision.

Kind of like how Tom Delay is trying to divert attention from his ethical problems by threatening to impeach judges who don't decide the way he wants, or how Bill Frist is trying to kiss ass on the religious right (with an eye on 2008) by appearing in ads attacking the judiciary as anti-Christian.

It is easy sport for politicians, because the judges cannot fight back. They are bound by judicial ethics rules not to comment on their cases, and actually reading the details of the decisions is too much work for media and bloggers. For the politicians, it must be like taking candy from babies.

So too many people get fooled. Well, don't be. Who passed the ridiculolusly complicated tax law that has you tearing your hair out? Who has us running record budget deficits? Who mismanaged the intelligence agencies? Who agreed to let China into the WTO without a floating currency? Who sticks billions of dollars of pork into the appropriations bills each year? Guess what - its not the judiciary.

And this case that you referred to "Oh, BTW.. I heard that the Supreme Court will rule on whether punishment of criminals violates their civil rights or not.. LOL" It doesn't exist, and I assume you know it.