Hah, thanks Jason. I'm glad I'm not the only dork in a hat getting on your nerves.

I think you're right to a certain extent, in the difficulty of separating the legal from the political; there is a line in there, though. My post was just my reaction, not criticism. It seems like there's a lot of good stuff going on here.

As for rule by judges, I still don't know where I stand there. I mean, judges make rules, it's what they do. Most of what we're doing this year is learning the rules that they made and how they applied them. The term 'activist judge' these days just seems to mean 'a judge with whom I disagree.' In Constitutional Law, unless you're a Thomist (Thomasist?), you think judges need to make law. The Constitution is not a simple thing; there's no easy reading of it. The debate tonight proved it (and your comments on that idiotic spectacle were right on, by the way). What does commander-in-chief mean? What does war mean, for that matter? How much authority can Congress delegate? How could we know these things without judges to tell us? And when they do tell us, can we call it anything but judge-made law?

Anyway, keep up the good work. And for other readers, do come check us out at the Weasel. I'm the only wacko liberal over there, and have two conservatives to keep my flights of relativist fancy in line.