Justice Stevens is widely expected to step down after the current term, which should make you happy. Oddly enough, he was expected to be a conservative when he joined the court.

>I know about the information you're citing, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time the Supreme Court has ruled inconsistently on individual rights.
>
>Just take a look at the Supreme Court rulings regarding eminent domain and property seizures. They are disturbing. Read some of Justice Stevens opinions on these issues, his opinion on the Gitmo pay decision in June of last year....and you get the picture of an increasingly whacked-out liberal with no concept of consistently defending individual liberties (regardless of what he thinks he is).
>
>Mandating service, be it military or community, is a violation of individual rights - period.
>
>If someone voluntarily gives 2+ years of service in exchange for college, I have no problem with that - as the individual is the one initiating the decision.
>
>But liberty is an unalienable right, it cannot be negotiated or transferred or usurped by the government - and so John K., while I often agree with you, freedom and liberty don't come at a cost.
>
>Finally, "should" someone fight if there is a call to arms, if our country is under attack? Yes, absolutely...because one should value life in a free country over being crushed by totalitarian rule and agression. And a country that consistently defends individual rights (which, sadly, few here advocate) is the country most worth fighting for.