It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as spring-boards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions.Judge Kozinski had that to say from his dissenting opinion rendered from the 9th Circus' decision in the Nordyke case.
My question is, why can't all judges write opinions like this? We libertarians and conservatives feel this way, how hard is it for judges to express their thoughts in "normal" commoner language? It certainly would make decisions easier (and more fun) to read, but the best part is that this is the kind of language that sets jurisprudence for years to come. Can anyone imagine Scalia writing something like this into a majority opinion to screw with the libtards for decades to come? Two words...last laugh.