I’m not following??? What predictions do you speak of??? For both of those, we know exactly where the LIBs and staunch conservatives will land. It is those one or 2 in the center that have the final say.
Using that argument, I’m predicting Roe vs Wade will stand. There are 2 conservative justices that are somewhat unpredictable. The remaining 7 justices are very predictable. IMHO
there are not one or two in the “center”. there are 5 conservatives, 3 liberals and 1 politician. the 5 conservatives don’t always agree, the three liberals don’t always agree, the politician is always a politician. as for the conservatives, Kavanaugh may be developing into another politician… juries still out.
Every possible law and legal situation is not expressly discussed in the constitution. Therefore those laws and legal situations must be interpreted by what is expressly said in the constitution.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. I’m betting I can predict which way 7 of the 9 justices will come down on an issue, more often than not. 
in many cases yes. but there always are surprises. the liberals are more predictable (moreso without ginsburg who was at times surprising). kagan and soto nearly 100% predictable. thomas and alito also, for the most part. there is the occasional surprise but their frustration with roberts’ skirting issues is becoming apparent in their dissents. gorsuch, not so much, predictable with caveats. barret… don’t know yet. breyer, same as gorsuch on the other side. roberts is easy, just find whatever argument most avoids doing anything. kavanaugh trends more toward roberts than gorsuch, maybe he’s running to be the next chief.
They are all political individuals. The decision on homosexual marriage was purely political in both its timing and its “reasoning”.
Not a wrong decision imo but It is purely political.
Awesome analysis. (Not sarcasm)
We are in accord. It is the law they are interpreting, not the Constitution.
Fair point. I would like to see more simple rulings. In the case you cite, nailing a copy of the 14th to a podium should have been sufficient.
I agree, good analysis. Could it be that these “surprises” are kabuki to manage our perception?
i wonder sometimes myself. taking turns being the odd man out to present an appearance of conservatism while maintaining the status quo? its possible
Maybe taking that interest of the scales of justice the wrong way. Hubris is a powerful drive.
Isn’t that part of the problem now? Laymen can’t understand the laws because it’s written by lawyers using legal jargon. Hence the need for lawyers to defend them from being prosecuted when they end up being accused of breaking them.
Edit: Not to mention the people charged with enforcing said laws not understanding them either (or half the time even knowing what they are.)
Yes. I meant grammar and spelling.
We’re slowly moving back towards using heiroglyphics anyway. Problem should resolve itself. Just give it more time.
If I ever see Covfefe in a bill, I might lose it.
I consider the Constitution to be the backbone of the law. The “law of the land,” as some say. I don’t think it makes a big difference in what people think is being interpreted however. At some point an interpretation occurs.
I disagree. I think it makes a huge difference.
That’s fine. Every decision must be constitutional.
If someone says the law is interpreted in context of the constitution, that’s fine. If someone says the constitution is interpreted in context of the law being questioned, to me that is also fine. The end result is the same. A law/decision that fits within the confines of the constitution.
Should be.
