"We Ain’t Backing Down" rally against activist judges, to bring certainty to courts by always siding with Conservatives.

If you had a feeling the teabilly movements random use of “freedomand liberty” had a hollow ring to it, you were right beyond your wildest dreams.

The teatard rally at the Capitol Saturday 10 to 11 a.m., isbringing a very unusual message to the people’s house.

Brookfield Patch: The purpose of the rally is to remind “judges they areconsistently ruling against the democratic majority in this great state,”according to the statement.

And that's because...oh never mind. Here’s how our low information pocket constitutionalistsview the judicial branch of the government and the whole idea of theconstitution:

Time to get out School House Rock?

“We demand they respect the other two branches of governmentand allow our state to run by the consent of the people. Our state Constitutionneeds judges that apply the law the people write, not reinterpret it.” Thepurpose of the rally is to remind “judges they are consistently ruling againstthe democratic majority in this great state. We demand they respect the othertwo branches of government and allow our state to run by the consent of thepeople. Our state Constitution needs judges that apply the law the peoplewrite, not reinterpret it.”

Is  your head still spinning? It’s hard to know where to start. If these are the supposedgreat defenders of the constitution, heaven help us. Majority rules? The tyrannyof the majority is more like it. Blame tea party dumbo's in Founders Intent and the Tea Party Patriots.
After siting “decisions, including DNRregulations, voter ID laws and the collective bargaining law” it never occursto them that maybe they’re the ones with a constitutional problem. Instead,they “call the judges' actions an abuse of power.”
Of course, all of this stupidity is ripe for manipulation by those who would put corporations in charge. Which brings me to the latest look at our gasping judicial branch.
In the recent issue of the Nation, Bill Moyers wrote this:

They fashioned a compelling narrative based on a judicialphilosophy called “originalism.” The task of Supreme Court justices was tostick to the text of the Constitution as faithfully as a fundamentalistclergyman to the word of God … The words of the founding fathers should beapplied precisely as they had understood them in 1787, in order to divine their“original intent.”

The effort to find “rights” not explicitly mentioned in theConstitution in order to expedite the purposes listed in the preamble—such aspromoting the general welfare and establishing justice—was, in Robert Bork’sview, a “heresy” practiced by liberal justices trying to cram radical socialprograms down the nation’s gullet. Never mind that said preamble seems todefine that “original intent” more clearly and eloquently than any othersource; after all, the framers wrote it.

The nation imagined by its founders—those authors of “We thePeople,” who clearly intended this experience in self-government to include themany, not just the privileged few—is under siege by extraordinaryconcentrations of corporate power and private wealth, aided and abetted by anautocratic judiciary.

In another Nation article William Yeomans sited this example of the right wing takeover of our courts: 

In assessing the corporate capture of the courts, however, a compelling starting place is the memorandum written in 1971 by Lewis Powell for his friend Eugene Sydnor, an official of the US Chamber of Commerce.

He wrote almost hysterically that “the American economic system is under broad attack” by “Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries,” Powell wrote that “with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.” He urged the Chamber to adopt the tactics of the ACLU, civil rights groups, public interest organizations and labor unions in convincing the Court to empower corporations.