While the 9th Circuit was saying that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, the US Supreme Court heard a case on whether judges running for elected office in Minnesota can announce their opinions to the public. The Court said that it was free speech, but the vote was only 5-4. How could anyone be against a candidate for public office expressing his views?

The answer lies in the identities of the dissenting votes. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer have liberal judicial philosophies that are incoherent, irrational, and out-of-step with the public. They would not have been appointed or confirmed if the public had a good understanding of their judicial views and the people were actively involved in the process. These four are ideologically opposed to judicial scrutiny because they know that their own jurisprudence would never hold up.