Vaguely citing the federal Constitution, and a federal court decision, a state judge in North Carolina, at the request of the American Civil Liberties Union, has nullified a state law banning unmarried couples from cohabitating. North Carolina isn't Vermont, and if the state's laws reflect the views of the people who live there--even if they're not my views, or the judge's views, or the ACLU's views--why should anyone have a problem with that? We live in a republic, right? The right to live with your girlfriend, I confess, is a part of the Bill of Rights that escaped my notice.

Self-government means just that. It doesn't mean enlightened government.

The organization bringing the suit, the ACLU, interestingly has been involved in a number of housing suits aimed at curtailing the rights of individuals. Landlords who don't care to rent their property to non-married couples, for instance, have been sued by the organization. Freedom of association? Property rights? To loosely paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi, these are not the rights the ACLU was looking for. The ACLU embraces the rights that embrace their agenda, and rejects the rights that reject their agenda. They are cafeteria Constitutionalists, picking and choosing what suits their appetites. They are not a group interested in civil liberties (particularly not the civil liberties of landlords) despite their name. The ACLU is interested in using the legal system to impose an agenda that would never pass muster through the normal, democratic process. Using the courts to repeal a law passed by the duly elected legislature of North Carolina, and not repealed by any of the duly elected legislatures in the 200 years since, demonstrates this.

On the books for 201 years! Seemed like it would be settled law with all that time backing it up. Compared to Roe vs Wade this thing is settled law 5 times over. Liberals must be pissed at this judge's blatant disregard for settled law.

This is why judges should be elected and not appointed. They are beholding to only themselves and some are fruitcakes, sick with power, who are easily coerced.

They should remain appointed. Judges are often easily coerced now, I agree.

What I fail to understand is how you believe that introducing eletion-style politics to the courts would make them LESS corrupt, and not moreso.