On Tue, 14 May 1996, Harold Ancell wrote:

The question here is, should they abandon the written Constitution in
doing so?  They've abandoned the rule of law and substituted for it
the much less satisfying and safe rule of men.  As our Founders
envisioned, their independance from and tension with the other
branches of government helps, but there is no substitute for the rule
of law, a concept going back to at least the 12 tablets of ancient Rome.

Heh.  I'd argue what the modern judiciary has done is no different than 
judges have been doing in "English Based legal systems" for hundreds of 
years.  It's simply part of the common law tradition of law making 
through the law courts.  The court system desegregating schools, making 
abortion legal, throwing out the CDA (Please, God, please!  A man can 
hope :), enforcing school busing, etc, isn't acting any differently from 

The Dred Scott decision (1857)
The transferral of power over water to private corporations in early 
nineteenth century massachussetts through reinterpreting the old water laws
The redefinition of married women's rights over their property in the 
colonial period
The redefinition of divorce laws in the same period
The manipulation of treason charges to destroy political opponents in 
Early Modern England
The activities of the Star Chamber in Stuart England
etc, etc, etc

Or are you referring to something else when you say the law courts have 
abandoned the rule of law?

 

 John Walter Biles :  MA-History, Ph.D Wannabe at U. 
Kansas         
ranma@falcon.cc.ukans.edu   http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~ranma/falcon.html 
                            http://www.dhp.com/~wraven/john/index.html
"All dressed up and no place to go...but Oblivion!", "That's so 
sweet...I'm getting cavities!", "Welcome to hell, Sailor Moon!"--Queen Beryl