It's not a question of rule by lawyers - it's a question of people who are expert in the law deciding the interpretation of it.

Is there any limitation on how they interpret the Constitution, or simply because these 9 people are on the Supreme Court, they are free to change the interpretation of any law as they see fit? If there is a limitation - how would you define it in such terms that laymen would understand it, and be content with it? Cause you know, if people start thinkin' that judges behave like dictators, at some point they can get all together and hang those experts on the lamp-posts. There are plenty of examples of people who believed they knew exactly what the people wanted and needed - and who one day woked up and found out that their heads were surgically removed by a guiliotine.