I highly recommend reading Berkeley law professor, John Yoo’s weekend op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Twenty Years of Justice Thomas.
This is one of the most powerful paragraphs on the Constitution and Supreme Court I’ve read in some time:
Clarence Thomas set the table for the tea party by making originalism fashionable again. Many appointees to the court enjoy its role as arbiter of society’s most divisive questions—race, abortion, religion, gay rights and national security—and show little desire to control their own power. Antonin Scalia, at best, thinks interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning is “the lesser evil,” as he wrote in a 1989 law journal article, because it prevents judges from pursuing their own personal policies. Justice Thomas, however, thinks that the meaning of the Constitution held at its ratification binds the United States as a political community, and that decades of precedent must be scraped off the original Constitution like barnacles on a ship’s hull.
I’m glad Clarence Thomas is a justice and I’m also glad that we have folks who can write about this like John Yoo.
And for those who still struggle with figuring out the tea party is about, this is one key thing — having those in government serve their roles as defined, not as one political group or the other believes they should be defined.
The other key thing is fiscal sanity.