The problem with the judge and the constitution, is he is only on the side of the constitution when the democrats are in office, and when the republicans are in office, he looks the other way.
In KELO, he said it best, when it comes to property, the goverment can take it, the only issue then becomes what value does it have, and the owner of the property will have to go to court to establish a value for the property, and that value has to be set by the goverment.
In other words, he sides with goverment in the taking of peoples property ( as the king did in england) and the person owning the land would have NO SAY. The goverment would then seize the property and begin using the land for whatever purpose while the owner of the land is forced to sue the goverment in order to be compensated.
How does this reconcile with his positions of "smaller goverment", or "goverment intrusion" or "goverment being able to take from it citizens"?
This buffoon will say whatever FOXED SPEWS tells him to say.
Peace.