While there is no assurance that judges will reach sound decisions, there also is no
indication that legislators can be trusted to define the limits imposed upon
themselves by the Constitution.

In a diverse culture there will always be disagreements about what rights mean.

y-'*"~-~—————————-T

There will be disagreements about which rights deserve constitutional protection
and which do not. So the controversy really never ceases. Amid this ferment, if
judges (rather than legislators) are the final voice of authority on how natural rights
are to be respected in the civil law, then much depends not on the checks and
balance of government, but on the moral convictions of five out of nine Supreme
Court Justices.

In the end, rights are a means of protecting the moral interests of the weak against
those who are powerful. There are serious disagreements about what those rights
are, and what scope of protection they confer. Yet it's clear that the judicial must be
strong enough to resist encroachment by legislators or other government authorities.
And it's also clear that the judicial power to interpret and enforce nghts cannot be so
strong that one person or a few persons can usurp the legitimate powers of
democratic, representative government.                                   7"^    y'