For  thousands of years  men were ruled by dictators  who governed by virtue of their control of  the armed forces;  they were called 'kings', and those who  they ruled over were called  'subjects'.    As kings, they  arrogated to themselves the power to make the laws by which everyone  else had to live, on pain of  imprisonment, torture, confiscation and death.  This rule by  the whim of the king was called 'absolutism', and was considered part of the  'divine right of kings', theirs not by virtue of election, but through  selection by the will of God.
     Mere humans had no say in the making of law; it was the will of the 'sovereign', and people were not sovereign, only 'subjects' of the sovereign; to even suggest otherwise was  a crime--lese majeste, or even treason.
     Then a funny thing happened:   it was called the  'Enlightenment', and during this period, a lot of people began to think differently.   They began to think that government is not supposed to be a mere gang of thugs serving the chief thug (king, dictator, emperor, general secretary, whatever) as a tax-and-intelligence gathering agency, 'spies' and 'collectors'  for the boss--or bosses--but, rather, ought to be a servant of the people; ought to actually protect the public health and safety.   In keeping with this radical idea was the notion that the sovereign really ought to be the people themselves, rather than some chief thug, however much he might claim empowerment by God, or even, as they often did, claim to be a god himself. 

     Of course, if the people were the sovereign, then they had the right--and ought to have the exclusive power--to exercise that chief function of the sovereign, the making of government decisions and the making of the law.  This, of course, had been exercised in republics of the past, such as the Athenian Assembly, by the direct vote of the demos, the people in the assembly at the time of the vote; such 'demos kratia', or 'people power' (literally) wasn't always the best way to get things done of course, as lots of people tend to do lots of talking, which takes lots of time, and often doesn't even produce a decisive choice in the end. 

     And of course, sometimes even a bad decision is better than no decision (especially in wartime).  Also, the knowledge of experts was always diluted by the ignorance of those with less, well, knowledge, producing a lot of stupid decisions, when decisions were reached.   Thus, for example, the Greeks resisted for far too long the advice of Demosthenes to unite in defense of their liberty against the coming onslaught of their  enemy, Phillip of Macedon, who therefore was able to defeat them and put an end to  democracy in Greece;  as it turned out, they did not get it back for about 2300 years.  There's a lesson there.

     Our Founding Fathers, thoroughly familiar with all this and a great deal besides, therefore decided to establish our fourth political regime in America (the first three were the colonial charter governments, followed by the Continental Congress, followed by the Articles of Confederation) as yet another, but highly refined, representative democracy, with a legislature to make law elected by the people, and an executive to enforce that  law, and act as chief foreign policy-maker and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, also elected by the people--originally indirectly, through the Electoral College and House of Representatives.  More recently, as a matter of political reality dictated by our belief in popular sovereignty, the election of the President has come to be seen as illegitimate unless he also carries the plurality of the popular vote.  More about this another time.

     There remained the important matter of courts to apply the law (always general and imprecise) to specific cases.  For this august function, the Founders hit upon the idea of a hierarchical system of courts whose members would attain an appropriate degree of independence from passing political passions and pressures by virtue of life tenure after appointment--always, note, assuming good behavior and sane, ethical conduct--and who would not be elected by the people, but rather appointed by the executive and legislature acting in concert.  Hence our Supreme Court, and all the lesser federal courts.

     This system has served us well for  over two hundred years (a long run of success, as historians and political 'scientists' measure these things), but that doesn't mean it's working perfectly now, let alone likely to do so indefintiely.  Like any human construct, this one too requires occasional attention to ensure its continued proper functioning.  Lately a disease of the system has arisen which is perfectly foreseeable and understandable, and also, thank God, perfectly curable.  Let us call this malaise 'Judicial Megalomania.'

     Now, our Founders forsaw this possibility, indeed, even saw it as likely; hence, they constructed a system of checks and balances under which the encroachment of our rights by any one branch of government would be stopped by the immediate counteraction of the other two, guarding not so much our rights, as their own prerogatives.  Nothing smarter than enlisting human lust for power to keep the power-mad in check.   This system, however, has broken down as a result of the ideological fanaticism of the leftists in America in the last 40 or 50 years, combined with the craven cowardice of the politicians generally, leading those on the right, who are the most outraged at the usurpation of legislative power by the courts, to run and hide, rather than stand up manfully and call unethical conduct unethical conduct.  So, when our judges have rendered decisons that clearly go beyond their proper power to apply the law, and instead actually write law from the bench, no one in Congress or the Department of Justice calls for their impeachment; instead, leftists in government, academia, and the news media wax lyrical about the wonder of a 'living constitution' that can 'grow organically' from generation to generation, and even from year to year, without the straitjacket of precedent and established law restraining it. 

     How nice for the leftists--who are thus able to pass the hot potato of revolutionary transformation of the law from the legislature, where it belongs (if it belongs anywhere), where the lawmakers can be judged by the people who elect them every two years, and thrown out of office--and out of power--if they pass laws of which the majority strongly disapprove.  This is how representative democracies remain representative, without the legislature becoming a rubber stamp for the rich and powerful, and without the law becoming a tool for the super-rich to extract wealth from those who have it--the tax-paying middle class--and a tool for the wealthy and powerful elites to oppress the people and thus keep themselves, well, elite.

     Make no mistake--the left in America has used the courts to undertake a program of radical, leftist social revolution from above directed against the American people, a program which those people would never--have never--will never--vote to support, if given the opportunity to vote up or down on it.  This does not include those measures of justice, long overdue, wrapped up in the concept of racial equality which often are called 'civil rights legislation' for the simple reason that they are embodied in laws passed by legislators subject to the votes of the people.  Gosh!  Reform by legislation rather than adjudication--what a concept!

     Recently the leftists on the Supreme Court have overturned centuries of legal precedent by restricting the power of  the President to defend the United States by dealing effectively, as Commander-in-Chief, with enemy combatants captured while making war against us by our military or by allied governments.  They have reduced the power of the states to pass laws dealing with heinous criminals convicted and sentenced to punishment long considered neither cruel, unusual, nor inappropriate.  They have overturned centuries of legal precedent protecting our property from seizure by government not for public purposes, but for the profit of friends of politicians.  And only last week, we held our breath as they deliberated on whether or not to allow hundreds of years of practice and tradition to continue by allowing peaceful, honest Americans to retain their right to defend their lives and the lives of their families and neighbors, or to infringe on that right; for when people are forbidden by law from possessing the means of defending their lives,  their right to self-defense is surely taken from them in the most blatant manner.  Fortunately, the leftists on the Court were unable to persuade Justice Kennedy to side with them on this issue, so we Americans are still able to exercise our right, guaranteed by the Second Article of the Bill of Rights, to keep and bear arms.

     Why must we Americans constantly fear the revocation of our constitutional rights by the arbitrary decisions of 5--or even fewer--justices of the federal courts?  Our Founding Fathers were well aquainted with the practices of tyrants equipped with compliant judges, appointed by the 'sovereign' dictator, acting in star chamber, without allowing the defendents any of the protections of due process enshrined in English Common Law, often trying and sentencing them for the most imaginary crimes in the most arbitrary manner.  It was for this reason that so many of our rights were enumerated and declared 'off limits' for statutory oppression in the Bill of Rights.  Why, then, must we await the beginning of each new term of the Supreme Court in October with such dread? 

     The leftist elite that has dominated American politics since the 1932 election, and even since 1995, in spite of the Republican majority elected in 1994, has established a political machine that is deep, broad, and enduring in its hold on the levers of power in the American political system.  These are not limited to the elective offices, or even to government bureaucracies.   We must recognize the power of the Culture of Leftism in American political life in order to understand how and why our judicial institutions have been so wrenched from their constitutional moorings, and have become--quite consciously and intentionally in the minds of the leftists who populate them and use them, as judges, attorneys, political action committees, and all the other denizens of the leftist political culture who conspire--sometimes legally, sometimes illegally--to influence court actions and decisions, from the bringing of cases to the assignment of judges, to the nomination and confirmation of new judges, to the presentation and trying of the cases in court--and not least, in the court of public opinion generated by the 'news media' (so called--they often are better described as the 'Democrat Party Propaganda Organs').

     All these actors, including especially the 'political income groups'--or 'p.i.g.s' for short--have played a role in the massive reorientation of our court system over the last 40 years from adjudication to legislation by fiat from the bench.  No doubt it will take more than 2 or 3 appointments to the Supreme Court to restore the judicial temperment and judicial restraint necessary to an ethical and responsible court in our political system.  That, however, is where we will have to start if we wish to establish justice, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity for another couple of centuries (at least)--for that reason, it is imperative that we elect John McCain, flawed though he is, rather than allow the leftist activists who dominate the Democrat party to solidify their control of the courts and hence of our Constitution for another 40 years. 

     We must recognize where we are in the political and cultural life cycle of America.  We are waging a great struggle to preserve from dismemberment the magnificent edifice of REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, restrained from demagogy by a WRITTEN CONSTITUTION, created by our forefathers with such great wisdom only a few hundred years ago--a long time in the life of a man, but not in the life of a nation.  We are in a struggle to preserve that noble invention, the SOVEREIGNTY OF FREE CITIZENS, and prevent America's degeneration back into the dismal realm ruled by the arbitrary whims of KING COURT.