When arguing politics disguised as “Constitutional interpretation,” many on either side of the divide fall into this same trap: Those SCOTUS decisions we like were the product of “strict constructionism,” while those we dislike we decry as “judicial activism.” The “law” was drafted by humans, enforced by humans, and interpreted by humans. A decision of the Supreme Court thus thus can be no more the product of pure, unmitigated rational thought than the process by which the law in question was first created. In other words, if interpreting the Constitution was that simple, a monkey could do it.
Here are the words of one legendary Justice on the matter:
At the constitutional level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.
Justice William O. Douglas