and building upon them with ever worse decisions.

It doesn't matter when this started. It only matters how soon it stops. The sooner the better.

The trouble with changing the law is an activist court will simply declare the new law "unconstitutional" and then where are you?

Okay, maybe that wouldn't be too bad. Think of it as a first salvo in a grand conflict between the judges and the people. Or a last chance for the judges to knock it off before we throw the lot on jail for treason. Something that should have been dealt with long ago will finally get dragged out into the open. The separation of powers will reassert itself, backed up by the express will of the people.

I'm betting Bush will put up a couple of strict constitutionalists for the Supreme Court, the usual gang of hypocrites will cry "extremists!" the party of no-vision will filibuster, and the battle lines will be drawn. Come November 2006 they'll all find out what the score *really* is.

I have an idea about political revolutions that turn out well. They tend to be based on a desire to protect the rights and liberties of the revolutionaries against some recent effort to usurp same. All the changes they bring about are calculated to increase the protection for these customary rights. In other words, they're conservative revolutions. This was the case with the American Revolution. The various upheavals of England were in part for the same reasons. No one bothers to reduce the monarch's power except when he gets too out of hand. Then he's liable to get his head chopped off, and his successor finds he has a bit less leeway than any of his predecessors had. I doubt we're in for another revolution in this country, but if we are, we'll win this one too.

And no, the Left is not invited. Their revolutions always turn to shit in a hurry.