Supreme Court justices?

Question

When interpreting a law and applying it to a specific case, should Supreme Court justices take into account such factors as the circumstances that existed at the time of the law's creation, and whether those circumstances have changed? Why?

Answer 1

Politically the judges can't help but take such things in account.

According to the Constitution the Supreme Court's power is used to judge if a law is valid according to the Constitution, and it should be judged only on the basis of the Constitution and the original intent of the framers.

Supreme Court judges are appointed for life so they can be free of politics and are responsible only to themselves, their fellow judges and the Constitution itself. This gives them the freedom to make their legal decisions. In reality at that level it is impossible to avoid politics.

The amendment that made alcohol illegal and its repeal were in response to the mood and attitudes of the times. If the Supreme Court heard arguments on the freedom to use alcohol then the Constitutional Amendments that are in effect at the time would shape those arguments. Since Congress did a complete 180 degrees turn on the issue then the Supreme Court would have as well.

The famous decision on Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion in all 50 states. The Republicans have been working hard to get that decision repealed every since. If they Republicans got a majority on the Supreme Court then a Republican lawyer would bring a lawsuit against and abortion clinic and it would wind its way to the Supreme Court where they Republicans hope that the decision could be reversed.

So the Supreme Court is not suppose to be swayed by the situation and circumstances of the law when it was first proposed. They are only supposed to respond to the situation and circumstances that were in effect at the time the Constitution was written, but they do not operate in a vacuum so their decisions can be influenced by the circumstances and situation of the time in which the decision is to be made. However, they are NOT supposed to consider the situation and circumstances at the time when the law was made, unless it is one of the original parts of the Constitution.

Answer 2

This is the greatest controversy regarding Supreme Court decisions. Justice Scalia, for example, would say "no" to your question. He's a "strict constructionist." That means he believe no extaneous circumstances should ever be considered. Other Justices view the Constitution as a "living-breathing" document that must be interpreted in light of the conditions that existed when it was written compared with the conditions that exist today. My personal belief is that any Constitutional analysis should consider the conditions that exist when the Constitution was written and the conditions of 2007.