At the heart of this stems Eric Seymour's post arguing that the Democrats are filibustering Bush's nominees because the judiciary is the last branch of government that the left still controls. In it he states most left-winged judges "push their agenda through the courts based largely on personal philosophy (covered by Constitutional fig leaves)". I agreed with that statement, but his fellow Agora contributor Ed Brayton didn't, and it became a point/counterpoint argument that has included an anomyous poster and has gotten heated at times. Regardless, it's still good reading.
Probably the best post was Ed Brayton's discussion of the immunities and privileges clause of the 14th Amendment, in which he provides solid proof that the 14th Amendment was designed to force the states to uphold the Bill of Rights. He also slams the Slaughterhouse opinion as judicial activism, and chides conservatives for supporting that opinion even today. The central question is how far does the clause go in incoporating the Bill of Rights as well as natural rights into the 14th Amendment?
Also, we're trying to find information into Janice Rogers Brown's stance on this clause. Brayton originally said Brown felt the 14th Amendment didn't incorporate any rights upon the states, but after I found a Washington Post op-ed berating Brown for supporting the Lochner decision, it seems she possibly changed her mind about it considering Lochner is considered the widest interpretation of the immunities and clause argument to date. If you have any insight into this, feel free to leave a comment or scroll down and click "contact me" on the sidebar.
I've finally received Men In Black (which means I am now reading two books, because I still haven't finished reading South Park Conservatives), and just finished "Radicals In Robes", the first chapter. I'll be looking out for Levin's opinion on the 14th Amendment as well as how it pertains to judicial interpretation today.