It will be an activist judge that doesn't give a shit about the Constitution, I can tell you that much.
Well pretty much every judge is an "activist" judge. It is basically impossible to get rid of politics in courts. It is human nature. Also, the Constitution is vague and people interpret it differently. Our founders made it that way on purpose.
Thanks; I am certain that who ever it will be they will be a stanch globalist, a big supporter of international law, a real 'rules for radicals' kind of guy or gal.
No, they didn't, you're confusing "our founders" with "Alexander Hamilton". You are a prime example of the "winners write history" dilemma and its turning our nation into a bunch of morons (No offense to you). Hamilton is the bastard that got us started on this path of treating the constitution as "vague" and finding "implied powers" if you "read between the lines". When Jefferson was asked on this topic he said all he saw between the lines was "blank space" to be filled in through the proper procedures outlined in the constitution to be dictated by the sovereign states. Jefferson and the other cool founders saw the Constitution as a set of constraints on Federal powers, wheras the authoritarian Hamilton saw it as a grant of powers! Hamilton was an imperialist scumbag and he succeded. He established this foundation of UNLIMITED government that has brought us to our demise. Fuck Hamilton, he is not my founder.
Our demise? Our government isn't perfect by any means, but you are way too cynical dude. I think Supreme Court justices should be elected or something, not appointed. But if they were elected you run into the problem of people voting based on political views. Don't you agree that every judge is pretty much a political activist? If you were a Supreme Court Justice don't you think you would interpret the laws with a idealogical bias?
Yes, America is going to hell in a hand basket. Perhaps I am cynical, but we are realistically doomed short of a miracle. Yes, I agree that we eventually allowed judges the freedom to abandon the constitution, as well as every other branch in Washington. No, that would be judicial usurpation of what should be a legislative power. Moral philosophical issues like abortion, religion or sex should be up to the representatives of the people. There is a reason none of that stuff is listed in the Constitution, because it is not the intended role of the Federal government to even make those decisions. If it were the Constitution should be amended, not just ignored. This kind of thinking is what has brought us war, debt and oppression. (Pot smokers are an oppressed class) Centralization of power has never benefited "the people" in the past, why should it work now?
Yeah, I do agree that the Federal Government has too much power. The federal laws on marijuana will be the last to change.