The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.
The Supreme Court is not the impetus for constitutional change - we are.
The basic guarantees of our Constitution are warrants for the here and now, and unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason, they are to be promptly fulfilled.
If judicial review means anything, it is that judicial restraint does not allow everything.
The Supreme Court needs jurists, not politicians.
The Constitution has a good share of deliberately open-ended guarantees, like rights to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and freedom from unreasonable searches.
But the Supreme Court does not make sweeping changes in constitutional law by accident, or by its own design. Rather, the Court is limited to deciding the cases that the parties ask the Court to decide.
In our system of democracy, our government works on a system of checks and balances. Instead of stripping power from the courts, I believe we should follow the process prescribed in our Constitution - consideration of a Constitutional amendment.
Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.
Just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.