Reply #28: Well you pretty much described the divide perfectly.

[msallied]

I too believe, to a point anyway, in the idea of a living document in that it should not exist to deprive a minority of people of the Constitutional Rights enjoyed by the majority. I don't, however, like the idea of those rules being used in reverse. If we can loosely interpret a decision in favor of the greater good (like Roe), then who is to say that a court can't (or won't) use those same loose definitions to do greater harm? It's a double-edged sword and we have to be careful. By the same token, strict constructionism can be viewed the same way.

The idea that there are two philosophies helps us to make sure that we can usually strike a chord somewhere in the middle. I think this is why the Founding Fathers were very vague in their language in the first place. To encourage constant questioning and debate rather than to dissuade it. That way, everyone has a voice. I think this is how we try to avoid tyranny.

I do not like the direction this court is headed, and it's not only because there is an increased conservative presence on the bench. It's because politics is becoming WAY too intertwined in the judicial process, which was originally intended to be immune from the political winds of the other branches of government.