I think Justice O'Connor is trying to persuade conservatives to demand her retirement. Her votes in the last few days have seemed like "What the hell!" rulings, without logic or sound legal reasoning. In the Grutter case she seemed to regret her own vote and hope that in 25 years affirmative action will no longer be necessary, even as she was articulating a new compelling state interest to make sure that it will still be strong.

In today's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, she reverses her vote in the earlier decision dealing with anti-homosexuality state laws, Bowers v. Hardwick.

Libertarians will hail this decision as a victory for freedom, but I see it as debasing the peoples' right to determine the kind of society they want to live in. Nobody seems to realize that this principle is fundamental to the idea of democracy. The loss of it will polarize us as much as any issue since slavery. Most religious people will denounce it as rejecting God's laws, which it does, but I think that the more dangerous element of it is that it suggests that the consent of the governed no longer is the source of the government's power. Courts are not representative of the will of the people and should, therefore, be reluctant to overturn decisions made by bodies who are.

What drives the current willingness to nullify actions of the political branches is an overemphasis of some civil liberties and individual rights to the detriment of others which belong to majorities. This trend has been underway all of my life and has its major force due to the civil rights struggles in the last 6 decades. I would not want to see a return to the Jim Crow laws of the past, nor would I wish to see the advances in tolerance and access to the means of power and wealth eroded, but I am struck by the aptness of Yeats' lines "The best lack all convictions, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity." Attacking "injustices" can often be a path to power for those who shouldn't be trusted with it.