THREE COINS IN THE FOUNTAIN OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
      By Erik Johnson
Act One.
The curtain opens and a dinner party is taking place. The year is 1969.
Earl Warren: ...unseaonably balmy lately--
Mr. X: (Interrupting) Mr. Warren, I've a bone to pick with you!
Warren: The wishbone?
X: Exactly. How do you expect any legal progress to be made in this day 
   and age when you're overturning what seems like every single law.
Warren: Not _every_ law...
X: I said it seems that way. I, sir, am a strong believer in judicial 
   restraint. You, sir, are running roughshod over our country's very 
   foundation: the Constitution of the United States. Why must you insult
   our founding fathers by trying to get inside their heads and figure
   out what they meant. They wrote it down, for crying out loud!
(Throws his wine goblet into the fireplace for dramatic effect.)
   As citizens, we are bound revere this holy document, and follow it 
   to the letter.
Warren: To the letter, my good man? Surely you don't mean that. To begin 
   with, you make it sound as if the authors of the constitution were 
   some sort of gods, scripting a sacred text. Obviously they were not gods;
   they were men. But men wise enough to realize they were not infallible.
   This is why they structured change right into the constitution. Do you 
   wish to eliminate the process of amending the constitution? Furthermore,
   what they meant may not apply today. They could not forsee televisions,
   or a computer that fits in a room. As our country approches its 200th
   year, it's important to remember our duty to interpret and reinterpret
   the laws of our forebearers.
X: (Looks pensive for a moment, then replies) Of course I don't wish to 
   eliminate amendments, but I also feel that the courts have no place in
   the making of public policy, as your court has done. That should be 
   left to our legislative bodies and to the president. This is a dangerous
   path that you lead us down, one that might eventually lead to a time and
   place when the court has more power than congress or the president.
Warren: Ah... you're forgetting our system of checks and balances.
   Ultimately, no one branch of the government can aquire too much power.
   In my eyes, our making of public policies is balancing some of the 
   unconstitutional decisions made by the other branches.
(In this point of the play the second course arrives, a chicken almondine.)
Warren: Could you pass the salt?
X: Hmm, let me think about it....
(They both laugh.)
Warren: One of the problems with being as restrained as you are is that
   important decisions often don't get made in a timely fashion. It's 
   possible to go too far. And as I've said before, your way of thinking
   does not allow for fresh outlooks on the law. What do you say to that?
X: (has to finish chewing) I can see you point, but I don't necessarilly
   agree. I suppose we're just doomed to have adversarial philosophies.
Warren: I suppose so.
(They shake hands)
Member of the Committee on Unamerican Activities: Just what kind of a name 
   is Mr. X, anyway?
(Lights fade, curtain closes.)
      The end