How interesting -- I called Sen. Smith's phone number to register my feelings about his support of Frist's move and reached a "mailbox full" message.

I guess if you don't hear from folks you can justify acting contrary to your constituents' feelings.

Judicial takeover, didn't that happen awhile ago? Like with Justice Blackmun and his "Constitutional" conclusions on Roe v Wade? Besides, what are you all worried about, it appears that socially conservative Presidents pick the best liberal judges, President Reagan and Bush(41) selected O'Conner, Souter and Kennedy. You should all be yelling for more speedy confirmations vice accepting the obstructionism in the Senate. As I tell my Mom and Dad when they go out on a rally or peace march(anti-war demonstration), are you rallying in front of your Senator's office, or is this really just a social event. Because if you aren't talking to him, it's a social event.

K. Sudbeck

There are some problems with you assesment of the situation with judges.

1. While you seem to take aim at Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade as unconstiutional, it also ignors the fact that even with Rhenquist presiding over the court cases such as Webster have shown that he was not neccessarily willing to overrule Roe as well. Additionally, what exactly was the flaw in Roe's reasoning that you object to?

2. Kennedy, Souter and O'Connor are not the mold that they 10 out of 214 judges subject to fillibuster are made out of. Rather, it is the likes of Judge Robert Bork, Judge Charles Pickering and others who have fought to limit judicial discretion over the law back to a narrow interpretive standard that is not in the mainstream.

Let's assume for a second that you are right - the Burger Court with 4 conservatives, 1 moderate and 4 liberals was when the judicial take over happened. Burger, of course, was chief when Roe was decided, how exactly does this constitute a liberal take over?

Finally, in the years following Roe, the Federalist Society, Reagan I and II, Bushes I, II and III have all pushed a far more agressive agenda towards shaping the federal judiciary. Cinton I and II gave us Breyer and Ginsburg - though consistently voting to uphold Roe, are they truly liberal?

Finally, if you think that rallying is just a social event. I assume you would apply the same logic to the Boston Tea Party?

Mr McBain, 1. As Gen Turgidson told the President in the warroom, "And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like, uh, General Ripper exceeded his authority." I did not say it was unconstitutional, but the decision was based on questionable grounds within the constitution. I will say that the court exceeded its authority and we are all paying for it right now. It should have been determined in the legislature, specifically with the states. Aptly illustrated by the Supreme Court's decision in the Schiavo case. That issue will now be clarified (re-examined) in the legislatures. 2. I think along the lines of Justice Scalia. Wasn't it mainstream a few years ago to discriminate against blacks? Mainstream thinking seems a bit too whimsy for me. I will have to retract, you are right it wasn't a liberal takeover, as it was more a judicial takeover. See Gen Turgidson's comments. I am not against rallying, but does the rally accomplish the task for which it was designed. Specifically, to sway our Oregon Senators to come in line with their constituents desires. Thus, in order for it to be effective, should it not terminate right at the Senator's office. Such that the Senator (or Congressman) can understand their constituents will. My parents tend to neglect the followup of actually contacting their Senator or Congressman, to ensure their message (from the constituents) was received. Hence social event. Will the rally tomorrow carry the same effectiveness as the Boston Tea Party?

Ah, you have just proven my point. Under those who seek to revisit past decision and return to original intent - ie Scalia, Bork, et al there is a gross misapplication of the law. For instance, under their reasoning Brown v Board of Education would have overstepped the court's boundaries.

Also,in terms of your critique of rallies - my point was that the results of such action will prove their worthiness. I'm sorry your parents don't follow up but, that does not mean that people should not rally. All things being equal - calling, rallying and organizing around an issue will get you more bang for your buck. Otherwise, access to a senate office is often determined by influence (ie money).

Back to the court, however, if you feel Souter Kennedy and O'Connor were part of a judicial take over just whom do you suggest are the taking over from? The Warren Court? If so, I agree we need more justices like those on the Warren Court (note: Earl Warren was a Repulican)

For Torrid Joe, glad you all had a productive rally, and I concur with Mr McBain that a productive rally keeps the access to congressman from being limited to how much money you have on you.

Now, the judicary overstepping its authority is not based upon party membership. It also appears to ebb and flow. But, It appears the current ebb of the Supreme Court began to overstep their authority dating back to at least to 1947, Everson vs Board of Education when writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black used Thomas Jefferson's argument for a "wall of separation between church and state" as the basis for his interpretation of the establishment clause. That is a statement not in the consititution, but used today as if it were. In 1985, writing for the dissent in Wallace v Jaffre, Justice Rehnquist argued that the framers of the First Amendment only intended the establishment clause to prohibit the government from establishing a national religion or preferring one religion over another. He also reasoned that the court had been in error in adopting Jefferson's rigid "wall of separation between church and state" idea as a basis for making decisions about the establishment clause. Based on these arguments, Justice Rehnquist concluded that the establishment clause does not automatically prohibit prayers in public-school classrooms. As noted by the Chief Justice, I would say that the above 1947 decision was a misapplication of the law. (That doesn't mean I am for prayer in school, otherwise we will have to accomodated every major religion in the world.) But, the court overstepped its authority and these issues should be delt with in the Legislature, where I get to vote on my representation vice policy being developed in the court.

I would say that Brown vs Board of Education would not have been required if the previous Supreme Courts had not been activating against the legislature and populace.(But it appears they were in the mainstream) Examples, 1856 Scott v Sanford (Dred Scott), which overturned legislature that prohibited slavery in certain parts of the Lousiana Territory. That decision was overturned by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments(and the Civil War). The Court followed that supreme error by overturning legislative provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. That was followed a decade later by Plessy v Ferguson, the infamous "Separate but Equal" precedent. So if the court had not overstepped its authority in relation to the Legislature and Executive, would Brown v Board of Education been necessary?

K. Sudbeck -- question, what do you think is the correct role of the Judiciary relative to the Legislature and Executive?

My understanding was that the Supreme Court was ultimately the arbiter of whether the "will of the people" as expressed via the Legislature was consistent with the fundamental structure of government as defined by the Constitution.

If not, then the law is overturned. And if that is truly unacceptable to "the people", then they have the ultimate recourse of amending the Constitution as needed.

Now, this is not to argue that the Supreme Court has never overstepped its bounds.

It's just to say that the obligation of the Supreme Court is to the Constitution, not "The People".

Mr. Wright, That is my understanding and I concur with you on the role of the Court. But, when I hear that proposed judges or justices are not in the mainstream or Justice O'Connor saying we should consider foreign law (CSPAN), well it gives me a headache. Because, their obligation is to the Constitution, not the people (mainstream). Hence, I desire more justices/judges like Justice Scalia vice others who may pander to the mainstream. Thus, I am not part of the effort to stop the so-called radical court packing scheme.