Charles Krauthammar points out that segregation was unique, and judicial activism should be avoided. Avoided like AIDS or SARS.
Everyone hates the idea that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, right? You say you don't hate it when the Supreme Court discovers something new in the Constitution? How about the Dred Scott case, where the Court discovered the right for a Southerner to take his slaves anywhere? Did you like the way that extended slavery into the Free States? How about when the Court discovered that corporations were really persons?
Every time the Court does this it keeps us from pursuing the legislative process, from finding our own compromises. Judicial activism politicizes the judicial process without giving the people the opportunity to influence the process. I cannot lobby judges, or give money to lobby judges. I cannot contribute to or work for their campaigns. Those lifetime appointments mean it is hard to change the court. It is even harder to amend the constitution. That's why we have that helpless feeling. Perhaps we should begin letter writing campaigns, telephone campaigns, protests, etc. If we treat judges like legislators maybe they will be motivated to stop behaving like legislators.
Hat Tip from Mrs. du Toit.