The following is an excerpt of Barack Obama giving an interview (before he was a somebody) offering his take on the US Constitution:
"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. ... the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. .... It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution... Says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was ... there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."
Here he laments that the US Supreme Court, during the litigation phase of Civil Rights, never acted in it's power to create law and redstribute wealth.
This is why "activist judges" on the left create new law that substitutes or ignores the US Constitution -- because they can.
I saw a movie over the weekend that I never saw before starring Edward Norton, Jr. titled "Leaves of Grass" in which his title role is that of "identical twin brothers" one of which is a dope smoker and dealer of elaborate hydroponic marijuana and his twin (again played by Norton) is a famous philosophy professor and author.
In the movie, the straight Norton role is invited to lunch by the dean of Harvard to discuss a job offer they wish to extend. The Harvard school of law wanted to inject philosophy in the legal curriculum and will give him complete control over how to create such a new idea to teach their students a "different type" of law.
Though the movie was fiction, this scene was not.
Additionally, in another scene is depicts the realism that this professor and his studies are "sexy" and that he has problems with his female students throwing themselves on him wherever he goes. This is the heart of the matter with injecting the "sexy" philosophy curriculum to young minds studying law. Academia invents ways to indoctrinate the young into false thinking before they have a chance to mold themselves into the correct legal critical thinking. Once they graduate, take the bar and go out into the world of law, they have a perverse sense of "social justice" vs. applying the law to case law and the Constitution.
We need to reverse this stranglehold on our schools and re-institute the meaning of learning and thinking. We need to get away from indoctrination into socialism and make the idea/reality that America is sexy and that true justice is found, no grounded, in competitive success and no redistributive change.