First, a dissenting judge in a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals case once wrote:
I believe that if this Court were abolished, its chambers demolished, the ground plowed up, and the site paved over, one day a crack would appear in the concrete, and through that crack a black-robed arm would thrust an opinion that says, "We hold that the indictment in this case was not an indictment."
Pretty harsh words. What are those judges, ostensibly neutral, intelligent, and skilled legal analysts, doing invalidating indictments? It can't possibly be that there's some good reason to invalidate the indictment.
And second, Justice John Paul "the Second" Stevens dissented in the recent gun control case (D.C. v. Heller). He contested Scalia et al.'s interpretation of the Second Amendment and concludes:
The evidence plainly refutes the claim that the [Second] Amendment was motivated by the Framers' fears that Congress might act to regulate any civilian uses of weapons.
(emphasis mine). Why did five of the nation's most highly respected jurists, ostensibly neutral, intelligent, and skilled legal analysts themselves, ignore such plain evidence? It couldn't possibly be that the evidence wasn't quite so plain.
Sometimes people do things that I think are stupid. But I have to remember to pause and reflect. People aren't really that stupid, so they must have (or think they have) some good reason for acting stupid. Even those crazy judges (who must be on some payroll) who claim to be protecting individual rights but are really just helping keep criminals out on the streets.