Did anyone catch that John Adams special? It showed Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Sam Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and others. These guys were not portrayed as "Strict Constitutionalists". The series didn't spend too much time on it because it wasn't exactly the point of the whole thing, but it did seem to give us a pretty good idea of the thinking of the founding fathers which was that some principles and some philosophies are so burdened by the truth, that they cannot be overruled. On one hand, they agreed to write that every man is created equal, but they also understood that the newborn nation was nowhere near ready to take a case to court over the abolitions of slavery. There are some keen moments between Adams and Jefferson and Adams' wife when they just know that it's wrong, but that in that precise time it wasn't something that could be brought to the people yet.

Adams and Jefferson clearly were portrayed as having to "let go" of their accomplishments as a new generation and a new age would either build upon their legacy or shred it to bits, or simply retool it. I can't tell if they would have been very fond of those who would look upon the Constitution as though it was a bible that was meant to be taken precisely in the fashion that it was written and including the cultural mores of one specific time. In the series anyway, it appears that the things that are judged to be timeless should remain that way, while amendments ought to be made from the people through their representatives in order to advance freedom and democracy and rights for all.

I'm not so sure where I sit on this one. In terms of judicial philosophy, when a judge brings down an opinion, and it is read by people, it should probably anger the extremes on the right and left because they're never happy when they don't get what they want, and it should leave the middle people just a tad bewildered at how the judgment seems so in the centre that no one can really tell where the judges politics belong.

Scalia's comment about Roe v. Wade was sort of clearly and directly disingenuous when he said he'd refuse to find a constitutional right to life and that was because he was against it or whatever. An earlier poster quoted it better than I. He just had a way of putting it that was so political but not political. Pretty clever guy. But an obfuscator for sure.

Perhaps it would be better if judges were appointed by others in the field of law? Politicians seem to do such a poor job of it. They should all be somewhat like Judge Judy. She's kinda the "white-trash" of judges I suppose, but no politics in the decision is what I mean.

The Supreme Court as it stands right now is fairly politicized. That one judge that Bush Sr. appointed had been "expected" to be very conservative, but once on the bench he frustrated conservatives for voting both ways and often coming right up the middle. That actually made him a good pick because he seems to treat every case on an individual basis whereas we could predict Scalia's votes 99% of the time for the remainder of his life.