If we aren't, we're simply whistling by the grave yard. It's hard to remember a time when the political orientation and motivation of the justices has been more obvious. It's always been there of course but with a certain panache or gloss. That's gone. It is what it is.

You talk like political orientation on the Supreme Court is a bad thing. I beleive the bad thing about the Supreme court is that they are all Lawyers. Intrepeting the Constitution does not require a background in law. The Constitution, even with all its ammendments, is a short document and the manings in it are pretty clear to everybody except politicians and lawyers.

For the past century or so our Supreme court has been tainted by an over abundance of legal scholars and absolutely no people who really understand how what they do will really affect people.

The Constitution rarely requires intrepetation, if read, one can quickly find weather the issue is addressed within the words contained in the Constitution or not. If not further comment is not only unnecessary but un-Constitutional too.

What really ALAMS me about the current crop in black robes is their annoying, illegal and dangerous practice of relying on foriegn bodies/works of law to ''INTREPET'' the words in the Constitution. What our justices are doing is relying on what people who do not represent the United States in any way shape or for said about laws that do not apply to this country and then without benefit of our CONSTITUTIONAL representation applying those practices, ideas and concepts to us!

TexasPete

You hit it TexasPete. Interpreting the US Constitution based on foreign legal decisions?!

The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights were written specifically to relieve us of that tyranny.

I want to know why we put so much faith in these Justices. We here so much about the sanctity of our vote. Yet, we are so inclined to allow our elected officials to be vetoed by a minority of UNELECTED judges.

At the founding of the US, the Supreme Court was, and was intended, to be the weakest branch. Now it is the strongest. The pendulum has swung. I honestly would like to see the Executive and Legislative branch openly defy and impeach the Supreme Court on some issue (Kelo anyone?) to bring the balance of power back into balance.

So..."Cruel and Unusual" requires no interpretation? What exactly does it mean?

How about "High Crimes and Misdemeanors?"

Or even a simpler one: "To declare war?" What is the process that is required to declare war? Is it enough to appropriate the money for war for it to be a "declaration?"

And where exactly is it in the Constitution that the USSC can not use foreign laws or decisions as part of its interpretation? Do you consider the Geneva Conventions to be foreign law?

Foreign law shouldn't be used? We live under some form of the English Common Law everyday. The laws of the United States aren't wholly or uniquely "American."

Unelected does not mean that they do not have the duty to protect those minorities that are being subjacated by the majority.The will of the people is not sacred.If the "will of the people" ,ment that a law mandating all non christians are only second class citizens had to be enforced would you support that idea.Or would you want some judges to say that it violated thw constitution and throw it out or would you roll over and accept it.THE CONSTITUTION not the transiet will of some people is the law of the land.THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.not the will of the people nor the bible,or the(fill in the blank)."SELF EVIDENT AND INELIABLE,' OUR RIGHTS ARE They are not to be destroyed by the fickle will of the uneducated masses.I think jefferson said something to that effect.

If it were only true that the meaning of constitutional provisions is usually "pretty clear"!

It is not likely that lay people would disagree about constitutional issues less than legally-trained people do.

Nonetheless, there is something to be said for having non-lawyers on the Supreme Court.

A non-lawyer might look at the Constitution with fresh eyes and might see plausible meanings and interpretations that legally trained people might not see precisely because of their legal training.

&&&

There is precedent for having non-lawyers on the Supreme Court.

&&&

Folks other than lawyers study the US Constitution. For example, some historians do so. (Note: Today's lawyers and judges are notorious for their cartoonish views of American legal history. To the extent that constitutional questions depend on history, there is a strong case for putting a good historian on the bench of the US Supreme Court. Of course, historians also disagree. But this much can be said: The debates of historians about the "facts" of history would be more edifying -- or, in any event, less embarrassing.

&&&

In the 19th century (it is said) constitutional issues were seriously debated and discussed by large swaths of the public. (The Lincoln-Douglas debates are often cited for this proposition.) This suggests (but does not prove) that the public in the 19th century did not believe that only "technically" trained people could faithfully or sensibly interpret the Constitution.

fyi: The Lincoln-Douglas debates involved two people running for office, and not, in fact, large numbers of people seriously debating anything of constitutional significance. Both Lincoln and Douglas were accomplished lawyers, as well.

Tell me, TexasPete, what does "Due Process" consist of? Do I have a right to a trial on my parking tickets? Do I get a free lawyer for that? How about if I steal some candy. What if I'm eight? What if I'm insane?

If I get fired from my government job for being pregnant, do I get the chance to prove that I could do the job just fine? What if I get fired for being incompetent? What would the standard of proof be? Would the burden be on me to prove that I'm worthy or the government to prove that I'm not?

The fact that the Constitution is short and simple is what makes interpreting it necessary. It doesn't cover every situation, and there's no way of predicting what situations will crop up in the future. There's a reason we use (English) common law instead of civil code as they do in Europe; I personally believe that it's better for a human judge to look closely at each situation individually and decide what we think based on a set of broadly articulated principles than attempt to legislate at arms length every possible situation before we know what it will actually look like, and watch people fall through the cracks.

TexasPete--

I sincerely hope that your mispelling is intentional and that your "no interpretation needed" message is sarcastic? If not, you have displayed your ignorance twofold.

The problem with most things right at this point is public apathy. Most people are either too afraid to stand up and be heard or just don't care one way or another. As for what the constitution states one only needs to get a dictionary and look up the definition of the words they do not understand. Just exactly what are your rights? Read the first ten amendments and understand that what is not given to the federal government is given to the state. What is not given to the state government via their constitutions, is given to the people. Our so called judges and congress people have counted on our apathy for a long time. Yes we do need literal translation of the document! Some other countries have adopted our constitution for themselves and have treated it like a 'living' document.(no literal translations). The result of this was socialism better known throughout the world as communism. (a misinterpretation in itself) If clarity is needed for any reason there is a way, it is called an amendment otherwise treat the document as the rule of law throughout our country. If the judge legislates law he/she has in effect nullified congress this is unconstitutional. Laws concerning religion are unconstitutional according to the wording of the constitution. Read it for your self google it. You will find copies all over the net.

It is imperative that one branch of our government remain insulated from the whims of popular sentiment, because the people are ignorant, small-minded, and short-sighted.

The law requires interpretation, and that interpretation cannot be slavish to the people. Justices must in good faith interpret the laws as they see fit; proper recourse to a perceived erroneous or unpalatable decision is not through direct accountability to the people. If nothing else, the people are hardly capable of determining in any informed and prudent way what given laws mean, or how they ought apply.

The legislature is the proper branch for the people to voice their concerns and to change laws they deem to require changing.

[The legislature is the proper branch for the people to voice their concerns and to change laws they deem to require changing.]

How, exactly, do you propose that this would work? Must we amend the constitution every time some egghead on the bench discovers some new "constitutional right" buried in the eminations of the prenumbras of the constitution not even the Founding Fathers knew were there?

If the justices will not be constrained by the plain meaning of the text as written and defer to the elected branches on other matters, then we are ruled by an oligarchy, plain and simple. If the law means whatever 5 judges who cannot be voted out says it means, then the people are no longer soveriegn.

Wait, I don't understand what you're saying here.

We need to stick to the plain meaning of the constitution, but we shouldn't amend it to reflect new situations that come up and that the Founding Fathers didn't have the prescience to forecast 200+ years into the future.

So what are you suggesting? That our rights are frozen as they existed in 1789?

No. First of all, the constitution does not address every conceivable event that could happen to the country. It leaves all manner of things undecided. That is the purpose of the legislative branch. Congress is free to create all kinds of laws granting rights not mentioned in the constitution. States also have the power to grant rights not covered in the federal government.

Secondly, if the people want to amend the constitution itself, there is a process in place that allows that to happen. The founders knew that the constitution would need updating. That's why the amendment process is in place.

What I am saying is that it is the job of the judiciary to interpret the law, including the constitution, as it currently exists. They do NOT have the right to impose their ideas of what the law SHOULD be on us. Who do they think they are?