limitations

Do you think that the Supreme Court has overstepped its Constitutional boundaries as far as duties and interpretation of the law? Seems to me they create/modify law more than they interpret.

The basis of this conversation inevitably rests on the definition of "interpret", so I think it's important to make clear what YOU mean by that, and what the Constitution means by that. A lot of interpretation occurs through application. Application of a law in new situations will inevitably modify it's meaning.

The Supreme Court interprets the meaning of the Constitution with modern ideas and definitions. If one is to accurately interpret the Constitution, they must use the original intent, which can be found by researching the early state ratification conventions, the federalist papers, and other such things. Our law is not an evolving work that changes over time. It is what the founders made it and should not be changed. Such cases as Roe v. Wade show a judge arguing for abortion based on Common Law and then writes when it is ok to abort and when its not, explaining when a state can allow it and when it can't. To me, that looks like law. Blackmun used caselaw to back up his reasoning, not so much the Constitution.

I think time will tell, but sometimes a hard hand is needed to be able to control, even lovingly... I think they are pretty close though and need to watch out in order to not violate anyones rights.

In my opinion, some of our current Justices let their own personal bias and politics inform their rulings far more than they should.

I also think that the only true positive legacy left behind by our current president will be his SC appointments.

yeah. I agree with Josiah. Overstepping in a major way.

Seems to me the Supreme Court's function is to rule on a particular law or piece of legislation. The rulings is supposed to be YES or NO. The opinions that are written by the justices are not law in themsleves (they have become so in our government today). Presidential directives and executive orders do have the force of law. The check on them is with the congress, which has abdicated their position of checks and balances. The result is that we are an oligarchy (rule by a group or unelected persons). We have been a oligarchy since the turn of the last century, that is late 1800s to early 1900s. Unless we all (I am just as guilty on complacency and anyone) get off our collective duffs and take back our government, we will have ceased in the grand expiriment left by our founding forefathers. I still favor the bumper sticker "Re-elect No One".

You said it, waxhawflyer!

I reccomend you read the opinions of Roe v. Wade and Roper v. Simmons. You don't know how far our courts have gone until you have read the opinions of the courts. The major problem is interpretation. The courts will either interpret the Constitution based on modern definitions of the words or they will focus on international law or ancient laws to justify their reasoning. "They did it, so we can do it!" Here's an example:

"As respondent and a number of amici emphasize, Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which every country in the world has ratified save for the United States and Somalia, contains an express prohibition on captial punishment for crimes committed by juveniles under 18..."

Simmons was almost 18 when he brutally murdered a woman. They said that he couldn't be put to death, because the 8th and 14th ammendments forbid it. Basically Justice Kennedy calls execution "cruel and unusual punishment" and says execution deprive Simmons of "Life, liberty, or property". No duh! These two reasonings and international law showed Simmons deserved to live. What a world...

Amen! We need to get back to the perspective on judges found in the Bible and which was understood by Blackstone . . . judges don't make law, they discover it. Just because a judge says something is a law, it does not make it a law. In the Bible (Psalm 82) God calls judges "gods" (little "g") reflecting the idea that they are merely to rule on the law not make up their own.

Mr. Winther makes a good point about this when he discusses the term lengths placed on various government positions. He demonstrates that the founding fathers made term lengths proportionate to the amount of power that they saw vested in them. The representatives had two year terms, the president four, the senators six (who were appointed by state legislatures and not elected by popular vote until the ominous year of 1913), and last and dare I say least came the judges who carry no lengths save retirement or death.