BBCW's Wacky Liberal of the Year 2010 2nd Place: Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer

It is for flawed Constitutional reasoning of Justice Stephen Breyer that he makes the list of wacky liberals in 2010. With a federal government gone mad, Breyer further pushes the madness with judicial interpretation of the Constitution. There is no judicial interpretation clause in Article III, but pay attention to how Justice Breyer justifies limits on free speech with Internet use and the violation of the Fourth Amendment taking place at airports and getting ready to expand in bus stations, cruise ships, and even shopping malls.

Breyer said on "Fox News Sunday" that the Constitution was written well before the develop of the Internet, air travel and other modern institutions, which means there are no clear-cut answers in the document.

"Turn to any page," Breyer said. "It (the Constitution) uses words like liberty. It uses words like interstate commerce. It uses words like the freedom of speech. They stand for values. They don't tell you how to apply those words to the world of the Internet."'

In the same interview, to justify the TSA' genitalia groping, Breyer said the founding fathers never imagined things like airplanes either. Do you see the flaws in his arguments?

What is the Internet? It's the new paper. It's electronic parchment. What difference does it make whether or not words appear on paper or a computer monitor. Free speech is free speech.

What about airplanes? Sure the Founding Fathers didn't have airplanes, but they had other means of getting from point a to point b and that is what an airplane does. In it's simplest definition it is a machine that enables travel from point a to point b. They had machines in the Founding Fathers' days that enabled you to get to point a to point b. Now ask yourself, do you think George Washington would have enjoyed watching King George's men put their hands all over Martha Washington's body before she boarded a ship or carriage?

Justice Breyer is dangerous and these words and the way he thinks proves it. To try to make the case that technology is a reason we should reconsider the words of the Constitution is ludicrous.