Banning Stupidity

The United States Supreme Court (search), in the case of Lawrence v. Texas -- that's the sodomy case -- has discovered a compelling state interest -- that's court talk for an irresistible urge -- in overturning stupid laws.

This seems like a terrific idea, since so many laws fit the description. It also means the job of Supreme Court justice, previously reserved for scholars, nerds and presidential cronies, now crooks its finger toward the ambitious, the servile, the pandering... and those seeking mass adoration.

I'm tempted to begin campaigning right away for the next vacancy. If elected -- I mean, chosen by the toxic bog called the U.S. Senate -- I promise to set aside grim expositions of the commerce clause in favor of more toothsome prey.

I'll wipe out the tax code, just like that. Ditto for regulations regarding mattress tags. You won't have to worry about federal hotlines for telemarketers: we can extend the right of privacy to take care of them. Ditto for stoplight cameras, speed traps, parking zones with constantly changing rules.

Nobody understands the federal health care system: We'll order the feds to start over, and this time, to be consumer friendly: What could be a more compelling state interest than that?

Everybody will get a shot at American Idol, too, since the present selective system deprives the vast majority of their constitutional right to get ripped by Simon Cowell.

Man, this is fun! You don't have to persuade anybody of anything. No nasty arguments. No need to accommodate anybody; just a swipe of the pen and a wave of the arm and the whole world changes. Who needs legislatures? They're too slow.

Am I forgetting anything? Oh, yeah: I'll insist that the court be increased to, say, 500 people. After all, you need more than nine measly justices to clean up all of life's messes.