She is intolerant of criticism and vindictive.
She is completely nasty in her personal Ad Hominem attacks.

She gives conservatives a bad name and fittingly she attacks the Right as much if not more so than she attacks the Left.

What good is she good for? NADA!

Is the legislative function inherently indefinable? How about the judicial function? Is there ANY LINE AT ALL between them that a judge might cross, such that people could recognize that a boundary between two seperate functions had been violated.

What does the word “madated” mean in your world?

And I challenge you to find me a judge, any judge, who has admitted making decisions on anything other than their ‘interpretation’ of the relevant statutues and the Constitution. I’ve never yet heard of or read a decision in which the judge admitted basing his decision on ‘just because I wanted to’.

Just because you’re too blind and/or ignorant and/or biased to see that the Constitution mandates abortion, allows state-based discrimination and precludes banning same-sex marriage, don’t assume that the fine jurists that serve our country are as clueless as you are.

And, oh yeah, have a nice christmas.

Pissing people off isn’t the right definition. Issuing a decision that has no reasonable basis in law, is. Most of the cases that piss conservatives off, piss them off precisely because they have no basis in law, not just because they lead to a political outcome that conservatives happen to oppose. From a purely political standpoint, I happen to like the substantive outcomes of Lochner, Griswold, Lawrence and even Roe. But that doesn’t prevent me from decrying all four as judicial activism, because I have RTFC and found nary a mention of a constitutional “right” to free enterprise, contraception, sodomy or first-trimester abortion. Conversely, I have found a part that says states cannot discriminate arbitrarily, and haven’t found the part that says “unless you need to apply wildly differing standards from one area to the next in order to get the electoral outcome you want.” Thus it comes as little surprise that two of the four Justices who probably didn’t vote for the appellant in Bush v. Gore found the same constitutional flaw in the recount as the five who likely did.

Beth can speak for herself, of course, but I took her McCarthy dig as a reference to the excesses of “the McCarthy era” generally, including HUAC’s. The analogies to Schlussel calling Obama a Muslim and Beth a non-conservative imply that her principal beef with the McCarthy era crusaders lies with their Nifong-esque hounding of non-communists alleged to be communists, not with their justifiable (at least in McCarthy’s case – HUAC’s, not so much) opposition to actual communists.

“go ahead and get married, just don’t …” and “who cares, as long as the judge…” are more of a libertarian than a conservative position, as conservatives don’t like anything that smacks of same-sex marriage, government sanctioned or not… and they don’t dislike judicial activists in principle, they only hate liberal judicial activists.

And I don’t get the McCarthy dig. Are you saying McCarthy was wrong to oppose communism in general and in particular the communist infiltration of our government?

Seems to me the conservative position would be to say “Go ahead and get married, just don’t expect The Gubmint to sanction it.” Or, “Who cares, as long as the judge (Neff) isn’t a judicial activist for either side of the issue.”

But then, McCarthy–er, Schlussel–has questioned my conservative cred, so what do I know?