How should a justice vote?

It is a point often overlooked by the left--or, at least, glossed over--but I really cannot imagine a more important question, viz.:

Should a Supreme Court justice vote according to the results that he (or she) desires, or according to his (or her) understanding of the Constitution?

The problem with the former, I believe, is that it treats the SCOTUS as some form of superlegislature: Whatever liberals cannot accomplish through the Congress, they can probably get through judicial activism.

In my opinion, a Supreme Court justice--if he or she is any good--will sometimes vote for an obviously bad result, if that means upholding the Constitution.

Thoughts?

The latter, "according to his (or her) understanding of the Constitution," and according to his/her understanding of precedence, and with an aim of adjudicating constitutionality, not legislating law.

The latter, and no I am not writing that just to agree with everyone else.

As has been stated in the past by so many a the legislators job is to legislate the judicial to adjudicate. It is always best for one branch of government not to interfere into the jurisdiction of another branch.

If the legislature does not like the ruling of the judiciary on a certain matter they can rewrite the law to cure the defects pointed out by the court, but the court should never take it upon themselves to rewrite legislation. Just rule on the facts and issues presented with no emotion.

Neither. A justice should vote based on what the Constitution says. If there is an ambiguity look to case law, but always look back to the intent of the drafters.

I suspect the leftists on the Court think they are following the Constitution as they understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter1469

I suspect the leftists on the Court think they are following the Constitution as they understand it.

---

But should major decision be dependent on the reading comprehension skills of those on the left?

Here is an example of a SCOTUS ruling that had a very beneficial effect, in my opinion--but was really not grounded in the Constitution:

In Loving v. Virginia--just over 50 years ago--the High Court ruled that interracial couples may marry.

And that was very beneficial, in my opinion. (I can see no moral or practical reason why they should be prohibited from doing so.)

But I can see no Constitutional reasoning to back this up.

The same may be said for Roe v. Wade.

And for Griswold v. Connecticut (which really provided the predicate for Roe).

Again, I would much prefer to look to the Constitution--without any regard for what I might consider the better result...

Roe v Wade followed neither Constitution nor precedence. The penumbral right of privacy was pulled out of thin air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Roe v Wade followed neither Constitution nor precedence. The penumbral right of privacy was pulled out of thin air.

---

Well they pulled it out of somewhere, not sure it was thin air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DLLS

But should major decision be dependent on the reading comprehension skills of those on the left?

---

We can't do anything about how they decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DLLS

Well they pulled it out of somewhere, not sure it was thin air.

---

Shadows? ;)