An argument against strict constructionism

[rpannier]

I went to http://www.usconstitution.com/SupremeCourt.htm to find what decisions would have never occurred if the judges had been like scalia, thomas and probably roberts had been on the court:

Meyer v. Nebraska: Threw out a Nebraska law outlawed teaching foreign
languages in school.
Gitlow v. New York: Freedom of speech was protected against infringe-
ment by the state.
Powell v. Alabama: Ruled that states had to provide fair trials.
Brown v. Board of Education: Separate but equal was not Constitution-
al.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach: Made one man-one vote the law.
Loving v. Virginia: Virginia could not ban interracial marriages.
Gideon v. Wainwright: Provided every accused felon with a lawyer.
Craig v. Boren: Elevated gender to a protected category.

While I realize there are many cases out there that WE agree are significant. These cases are ones that most conservatives and liberals agree are good, sound decisions. I am not talking about neo-cons, I'm talking about those old style conservatives. These are examples of that "Judicial Activism" that conservatives deride.
And if your conservative friends say "Well, those problems would have eventually been rectified." Ask them, "When? And at what cost to the people living during those times?"

[Laelth]

1. Mark Shields ...

... likes to say that a conservative is someone who agrees with liberal policies 40 years after they become law. That's what I like to say to "strict constructionists."

-Laelth

[dsc]

2. In fairness Brown v Board wouldn't have been needed but for

Plessy v Fergenson which was a bit of judicial activism. I think Brown was actually much closer to the original intent of the 14th amendment than Plessy.