Guest Book

What I am saying is that the Supreme court under Earl Warren took an activist role in fighting the injustice of racism. While I am against any branch of the government going beyond the boundaries established by the constitution (I feel that what the Warren Court did was unconstitutional, I said that) the reasons for their activism and the end results was that they helped speed up the process of removing the curse of segregation with their activism. What I am saying is that I think the Warren Court was constitutionally wrong but it helped achieved much needed change and reform in the fight to end the blatant racism of the time. Let me sum it up as simply as possible. Although I think that no Supreme Court should take an activist role in making policy (their role is simply to decide whether or not the law of the land is constitutional or not) I can agree with the ends that the Warren Court achieved. Their activism was used to extend the rights of the people and to grant equal rights to everyone that is promised in the Constitution. There is no doubt that a Supreme Court that included Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas along with three appointees from George W Bush has shown that it would be an activist court with an opposite agedna. i.e. taking away the rights of the people. The Warren Court has come and gone. Whether I agree with it's activism is a moot point. I do agree with it's results. The activism of a Court full of Bush appointees would , as I have said many times before, in my opinion, mark the end of America as a Constitutional Democracy. The best we could end up with would be oligarchy. The worst, well let me say that if this horror comes to pass I'm gonna be looking for a cave in the mountains of Tibet. I would porbably be arrested for writing what I have written here.