1 That's not exactly what the judge said ("the people aren't allowed to govern themselves"). Teachers can proudly say that we have a representative republic - and that our system of checks and balances works just fine. Laws are made by people, and people are not always perfect. Sometimes our laws conflict with each other, and sometimes they conflict with the current understanding of the Constitution. In those cases, it is up to the courts to review the laws and sometimes invalidate them. That's the way it's worked here for over 200 years. According to the article you linked to, there are about 144,000 unmarried couples live together in North Carolina. That's couples, so 288,000 people. So, are you suggesting putting over a quarter million North Carolinians in prison (out of a population of 8 million)? Or do you agree that the law against cohabitation was outdated and needed to be stripped from the books? You should be clear - Either you think that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is the proper place for government intrusion, or you have no problem with the judge's ruling. If the first case is true, how can you call yourself a conservative when conservatives should be for limiting government. If the second case is true, then what's the point of your rant?

2 I'm suggesting that the law is supposed to be changed by the legislatures and NOT the judges. If this is fine with you, then the judge can decide by judicial fiat that he doesn't like the laws against rape and he can make rape illegal just because he can "invalidate the law."

3 It's beginning to sound a lot like... The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals in San Francisco, who have no compunction about legislating from the bench, in fact it's their stock in trade. Ken, there is a reason states send people to Capitol Hill to make laws, and why states send people to their capital cities to make laws. The job of judges and courts is to uphold the laws made by those whose job it is to make them. The problem is that today's liberals, knowing that they are in a minority among voters, have begun to bypass Congress and go directly to liberal judges to get their agendas "legislated", and for some inane reason or other, Congress and state legislatures just sit there with a digit inserted firmly where the moon don't shine while these judges are usurping their authority.

4 And worse, because this was a "bad law," the legislature will simply sit back and do nothing, giving their implied consent that it's perfectly okay for judges to decide which laws they like and which ones they don't. This seriously and directly conflicts with any concept at ALL of self-government. We have very obviously lost the entire concept -- we are NOT permitted self-government at this point in our history.

5 A judge can only decide "he doesn't like the laws against rape" if somebody brings that argument to the court -> AND can demonstrate that the rape law is somehow in conflict with existing law, the Constitution, or rights implied in the Constitution. The decision is reached by hearing the arguments and reviewing current case law. If the party involved doesn't like the decision they may appeal it. Sorry, Seth, but this is not because "today's liberals, knowing that they are in a minority among voters, have begun to bypass Congress and go directly to liberal judges" -> This is the way it is SUPPOSED to work, and has for a couple of hundred years. It's called Checks and Balances. The three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) were designed for this purpose.

6 Ken, you're talking about how things are SUPPOSED to be, not how this judge has determined they shall be. This judge could instantly decide that the laws against rape violated rights "implied" in the Constitution, and all laws against rape would be void.