True about politics, but "the life the the law has been experience, not logic," as one of its great oracles (Holmes) once said. That is not an excuse for the Rehnquist court: Holmes meant we shouldn't deduce the law from a priori principles, not that we should impose our personal preferences as law. In fact, Holmes is the chief advocate of the judical conservatism that I espouse: let the legislature decide. --jks
------------
Even if you add empirical qualifications such as `experience', or `the people' as the external appeal to foundation, as opposed to logical consistency, that still leaves the imposition of personal preference as the definition of tyranny in tact.
But as I prefaced the whole post, it is an argument. And its more important feature is to avoid appeal to personal preferences, like my support of various rights.
Personally, I would just haul their asses out the door, down the steps, take their robes off, paint them various lurid colors, and tell them to get the fuck out of Dodge. But hey, I am trying to be civilized here.
Chuck Grimes