"Popular" means "Liberal". It's that simple, at least in their minds. "Majority" doesn't matter. Popular is what they say it is. After all, they always know what's best for the other 95%, don't they? Who cares if that 95% doesn't want what the libs want. They're too stupid to make a decision anyway, so the libs will push their "popular" concensus as what's best for the rest of us...

The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers

Aren't the libs very clever in manipulation?  They accuse Roberts and Bush of stacking the court and not listening to the public, yet the libs propose exactly that: to stack the court by adding lib judges until they get a majority and the litmus test for being a SCOTUS judge is to be unflinching to the lib agenda.  Another case of Projection.  

Once again the libs demonstrate by their cleverness of speech that they are a direct threat to the Republic, they are diametrically opposed to government of the people, for the people and by the people.  The ideology of Islamofascism maybe the central theme of the GWOT but liberalism is no less equally an ideology that must be confronted.  As each day passes, I am more convinced than ever that were it not for the ownership of guns by the public (80 million), the libs would have tried a coup by now.  When a group of people believe truth is whatever they assert until you prove them wrong, such a group is dangerously unpredictable as they can rationalize any act, no matter how reprehensible as for the common good.  It is no accident or coincidence that libs soft pedal and blame the victim when it comes to Islamofascist and Eco-terrorists.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"

When it comes to stacking the court no one can come close to the Democrats during the wonderful 60's and 70's and some of the 80's when Earl Warren, Douglas and Thur(nogood) Marshall, and other liberal darlings, ruled the roost.

Let future students take note: 

• The professor offers no support for his opinion that the recent SC decisions are part of an ideological agenda. He simply assumes it. If he has that legal analysis available, he might be worth listening to. Until then, he offers nothing but ideological flatulence. Expect the same within his class.
• We’ve all dealt with teachers who can’t stand opposition. This professor obviously treats opposing views as ‘ideological.’ Write your papers accordingly. Give him only what he wants or he’ll punish you. After all, this is his track record.
• This professor doesn’t understand the difference between law and popular values – he thinks they’re the same. He claims that the Court is acting out of an ideological agenda, but he exposes himself when he relies on the liberal rant that the Court isn’t reflecting ‘popular values.’ (If he was consistent, he’d object to any ideology, but instead he only objects to the agenda that offends his assessment of popular values.) Teachers who make such obvious mistakes are not to be taken seriously.

Let politicians take note:

• FDR’s court-packing scheme was rejected. He paid a huge price for his meddling. Repeat FDR's mistake at your own risk.

If the Supeme Court is supposed to make its rulings according to "popular values" what need is there for it to eve exist????

Liberals think the court's previous makeup with supposedly 4 conservatives and liberals, plus one "swing" vote that usually went their way, was ideal. They really thought O'Connor should have been replaced with another "swing" vote!

So I'm sure the professor was outraged by the rulings by his fellow liberal/progressive pals involving saaaayy, granting rights to enemy combatants in Gitmo, who should have no rights, not even under the Geneva Convention. What flag do these terrorists fight under anyways? That should answer if they should be granted the rights the leftist legal minds think should be granted. So are they upset by that? I doubt it, nor do I believe the professor getting upset at the idea of gov't stealing one citizens property to sell it to someone else, that would be Kilo vs New London,CT. The SC said that imminant domain can be abused to take away one property owners land to sell it to someone else to gain more tax revenue, that goes way past the old "for the public good" standard.

The left in this country view anything objective as a threat, & the courts are no exception. If you want to see the libs/progressives fight, what happens if Bush gets another stab at a Supreme Court pick. The level of hell that Leahy, Schummer, & Kennedy would raise will be unpresidented, making the Robert Bork hearings look benine. I don't think the level goes down much if say, a president Guliani gets the next pick either. The left will want someone like Ginsberg, only the most "progressive" legal mind will do for America's Move-On/DU/HuffPo/ThinkProgress/MMFA/Newhounds/9-11Truthers, & that should scare the average American. 

"A goverment big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away"        Barry Goldwater