I beg your pardon, but what are some of the "any number of more promising avenues to challenge or limit the Massachusetts ruling" that Frank suggests sincere conservatives could have tried? Sure, it's true that a constitutional amendment is a tried and true method for "supporting" an policy your base cares about but you really don't want to deal with (like Reagan, and abortion). It's less clear that social conservatives had lots of good options, and it's double-dog less clear that conservatives ARE *correct* about this particular policy being anti-democratic. Social conservatives in Massachusetts *tried* to get a referendum on the ballot last year on gay marriage. It got squashed by the state legislature. Now, a 1-vote majority, supported by immensly tenuous legal argumetns, has made gay marriage from the Berkshires to Southie. It is an elite, the do think they no better, and they are anti-democratic. Frank should face up.
Ok, that's a hilarious typo. As penance I pledge to abide by the next two Stevens opinions.
Ha. Really wearing the hairshirt, aren't you?
3: Assuming you meant cases where Stevens wrote the majority, not just wrote an opinion, and that they're decisions he wrote in his capacity as Supreme Court Justice, rather than Circuit Justice for the 6th Circuit, the decisions are:
United States v. Booker (Stevens' part of the opinion holds that the Sixth Amendment is violated by sentencing enhancements mandated by the United States Sentencing Guidelines if they follow from facts found by the Judge, rather than by the jury)
and
Illinois v. Caballes (holding that drug-sniffing dogs at traffic stops are the greatest thing ever and can be used on a whim) (seriously, I think that's what it says)