The Kelo decision, allowing New London to seize private property and transfer it to developers for economic 'public benefit,' represents judicial lawlessness because it effectively wrote the words 'public use' out of the Constitution and substituted the courts' preferred 'public benefit'; justices' oath obligates them to enforce the Constitution's actual words.

Cosmetology licensing required ~1600 hours of training centered on chemical-based white hairstyling while not teaching African hair braiding at all (which uses no chemicals), effectively outlawing African hair stylists and forcing them into the black market; litigation led California to replace the 1600-hour requirement with a 16-hour sanitation requirement—the appropriate form of regulation.

It is literally impossible for a school-choice advocate to be nominated for president by the Democratic Party because teachers unions control the party at the national level—about a third of the delegates to the Democratic convention are schoolteachers or union members—as shown by Joe Lieberman and Bill Clinton both renouncing prior school-choice support upon seeking national office.

Marbury v. Madison (1803), the first assertion of the power to strike down acts of the executive or legislature, was fully consistent with the framers' understanding as expressed in Federalist 78; the historical revisionism came from Jefferson and Madison, who as presidents reversed their earlier support for strong judicial review because it now checked their own excesses.

Regulatory takings occur when government, instead of buying property to achieve a goal like open space, simply passes a law severely limiting property rights so it gets the benefit without paying—shifting the cost from the community onto a single property owner; new initiatives like Oregon's allow citizens to challenge such uncompensated value reductions.

The proper role of the judiciary, as set forth by Hamilton in Federalist 78, is a purely negative check: it voids unconstitutional laws but never exercises executive or legislative powers—a role courts have departed from today.

Robert Bork's position—calling for an end to judicial review of constitutionality so that majorities acting through democratic or bureaucratic processes prevail—would, if adopted, unleash tyranny in the legislative, executive, and bureaucratic branches.

An active judiciary in defense of individual liberty is vital to the preservation of a free society, serving as the ultimate check against tyranny by the executive, legislative, and bureaucratic branches.

Judicial activism, properly defined, is a court willing to stand up against majoritarian tyranny and uphold the rights of the individual; this is distinct from judicial legislation or courts assuming executive powers, which Bolick calls 'judicial lawlessness' and condemns.

Although courts have struck down more laws in recent years, this does not show increased activism, because the number of laws and regulations enacted has grown exponentially while judicial invalidations have not kept pace—meaning the courts are actually too deferential, not too aggressive.

It is easier for a special interest (faction) to manipulate the levers of power at the local level than at the national level, so courts must be especially careful to protect constitutional liberties locally, since individuals are often powerless in the political process and only meet powerful interests on a level playing field in court.

The wine decision has ramifications far beyond wine: as the internet displaces middlemen distributors, those distributors in fields like automobile sales and contact lenses are turning to state legislatures for protectionist legislation, so the ruling was a major blow for internet commerce and consumer freedom.

State legislation forbidding direct interstate shipment of wine, pushed by a cartel of distributors, was exactly the protectionist trade barrier the Constitution's Commerce Clause was designed to prevent; the 21st Amendment lets states regulate alcohol for health/safety but does not authorize economic protectionism, so such laws were rightly struck down 5-4.

The erosion of property and economic liberty protections began with the New Deal Court, which, in upholding slum clearance for public housing, started down a slippery slope from literal 'public use' to 'compelling public benefit,' culminating in a 1984 unanimous decision upholding mass expropriation of property in Hawaii.

The right to earn an honest living receives less judicial protection than the right to receive a welfare check; before the New Deal, courts invoking the 14th Amendment aggressively struck down arbitrary impediments to economic liberty, but afterward the Court abandoned searching review and adopted an 'anything-goes' approach.

Occupational licensing regimes, often controlled by the profession itself (the legal cartel being the most pernicious), are designed not to promote public welfare but to restrict entry and keep wages high; the proper judicial role is to sift laws genuinely promoting welfare from those serving special interests, as the court did in the cosmetology case.

Washington DC's ban on street-corner shoeshine stands, originally a turn-of-the-century Jim Crow measure aimed at recently emancipated black entrepreneurs, was struck down by a federal court in 1990 as having no rational basis, allowing entrepreneur Ego Brown—who hired homeless people and trained them—to return to work.

Teachers unions are uniquely politically powerful because teachers are present in roughly equal numbers in every legislative and congressional district (since schools follow population), making them simultaneously dispersed and concentrated—a combination that lets them influence both local and national politics; their power grew as private-sector unions waned.

The current monopoly public-education system is a dinosaur destined to fade, primarily because of technology: a system built today would not be a one-size-fits-all bricks-and-mortar command-and-control model but an individualized one, and the rise of homeschooling, distance learning, and computer-based learning makes the move toward individualized education inexorable.

Since the 2002 Supreme Court decision upholding school choice, the Alliance for School Choice has passed 18 new or expanded school-choice programs, adding tens of thousands of low-income children able to use education funds at private schools; scholarship tax credits (dollar-for-dollar credits for donations to scholarship funds) offer a no-strings, less-politicized alternative to public vouchers.