SAN FRAN SICKNESS: San Francisco's board of supervisors has passed a resolution condemning vicious hate mongers who descended this weekend on the fabled City by the Bay. Ku Klux Klan, you ask? Arian Nation? Try: teenaged evangelists. Really.

More than 25,000 evangelical Christian youth landed Friday in San Francisco for a two-day rally at AT&T Park against [the degrading influences] of popular culture.... "Battle Cry for a Generation" is led by a 44-year-old Concord native, Ron Luce, who wants "God's instruction book" [the Bible] to guide young people away from the corrupting influence of popular culture.

So, how did the extreme left-wing San Francisco supervisors respond?

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco ... told counterprotesters at City Hall on Friday that while such fundamentalists may be small in number, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

Here's the clincher:

Earlier this week, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" [meaning: the arrival of the Christian teenagers] by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."

That's rich. The "progressive" leaders of "tolerant" San Francisco demand that "obnoxious" and "disgusting" Christians leave the city at once. So much for inclusiveness. Oh, and if you're not familiar with Leno: This politician argues that state law should allow a person to possess as many as 24 pieces of child pornography for "personal use in one's own home" before being convicted on felony charges. You don't have to be born again, or especially devout, or even a Christian, or for that matter even religious - to wonder about the hysterical quality of Leno's response to a contingent of visiting Christian kids. (Remind me: why exactly do vampires shrink when Christians display the cross?) Even in a city that has become America's largest open air public toilet, Mark Leno gives slime a bad name.

POLITICS AND THE COURTS: Sandra Day O'Connor has blasted what she considers political attacks on courts. Ruth Bader Ginsberg likewise resents legislative intrusions into the sanctity of judicial contemplation. O'Connor and Ginsberg need to realize that when the courts enter into the political process — when justices behave like superlegislators on issue after issue — you can bet that advocates of judicial restraint are going to speak up. The Founders did not state that the various branches of government were to be forbidden from commenting on one another's works. The Founders intended for judges to interpret the law as written, not impose their personal preferences on society. Thomas Lifson offers an incisive overview of judicial activism at its most flagrant.