For this Justice, the Constitution mandates the law of the jungle.
After George Washington was inaugurated in 1789, he appointed six Supreme Court Justices — the Constitution doesn't say how many there ought to be — but on February 1 , 1790 the first day the Court was called to session, upstairs in the Exchange, only three Justices showed up and so, lacking a quorum, court was adjourned.
I don't favor litmus tests but I know that there are ways to assess how a potential justice interprets the Constitution and in my view the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with the -- with -- with our country and our history.
"We just wanted a constitution, justice, a better future.
"Old Man Can't is dead" — so, according to the Justice, says the Constitution.
How can a Justice "interpret" the Constitution without bringing values, assumptions, and biases to bear?
"So while legacy preferences can stand under the Constitution," Justice Thomas wrote, "racial discrimination cannot".
Like other Brazilian states, Bahia is semiautonomous, with its own constitution, justice system, and directly elected governor and legislative assembly.
Citing the United States Constitution, Justice Roberts wrote, "Our founding fathers created the most magnificent democracy in human history.
For Stevens, then, original intent is one factor — but only one — that should tell a Justice what the Constitution means.
