The Role of Supreme Court Justices in Interpreting the Constitution

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) plays a fundamental role in ensuring that laws and governmental actions align with the Constitution. However, the discourse on how justices should approach the task of interpretation has been contentious. Some argue that judges should not interpret the Constitution but rather let Congress resolve ambiguities. This article explores this issue and advocates for an approach that emphasizes judicial restraint and original intent.

The Proper Role of Supreme Court Justices

Conservative judges and some scholars argue that the Supreme Court should not be the interpreters of the Constitution. Instead, they advocate that judges should follow established laws and actively avoid creating new laws. This perspective is encapsulated in the idea that 'judges apply the law they shouldn’t be creating it.'

While the Supreme Court has a significant role in evaluating whether laws and governmental actions align with the Constitution, it should act within strict bounds. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, described the judiciary as a force of judicial restraint, limiting the Court to determining the constitutionality of laws rather than reinterpreting the document's meaning.

Originalism: Grounding Decisions in the Constitutional Language

Originalism, the approach that focuses on the original intent of the Constitution, is crucial in safeguarding the integrity of the document. This method ensures stability and fidelity to the Constitution's original intent by interpreting the text as it was understood at the time it was written. By adhering to this approach, justices avoid imposing personal biases or contemporary social trends onto the Constitution.

Originalism keeps decisions grounded in the language of the Constitution as written. This is especially important when dealing with provisions that have been enshrined for a long time. As Justice Antonin Scalia famously argued, the Constitution is a ‘dead’ document, and its meaning should not change with societal views or evolving standards of morality. The principles embodied in the Constitution should be applied in their original meaning to ensure that the law remains a stable and predictable framework.

Adapting to Technological Advances

While the Constitution is a product of its time, certain principles can be applied to new circumstances despite technological changes. For example, the First Amendment’s Freedom of the Press may need to be interpreted in the context of electronic communications rather than just traditional printing presses. Similarly, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause can be applied to new forms of communication and technology that did not exist at the time of its writing.

The key is to preserve the underlying principle rather than changing the interpretation based on the form of technology. For example, the principle of free speech extends to all forms of communication, not just traditional print journalism. The evolution of technology does not justify a reinterpretation of the text's meaning. The protection of the press applies to any individual or entity that uses modern means to communicate, not just professional news media.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s role is to uphold the law and ensure that legislation aligns with the Constitution’s principles, not to reinterpret or modernize it based on subjective views of what the law means. Instead, justices should interpret the Constitution in the light of its original intent, as understood by the society that enacted it. This approach ensures that the Constitution remains a stable and authoritative legal framework, preserving the foundational principles that the nation was founded upon.