|
|
In my opinion it is important to have both interpretivists and noninterpretivists comprising the justices on the Supreme Court. It is because of their great differences in philosophies, and differences in their decision-making process that there has come to be a built in system of balance. The court must include justices with different approaches to constitutional interpretation. “A Court without dissenters is a Court that will not adequately inform us of the costs of choosing the path taken” (Theories of Const. Interpretation). Through the debates over the different ways of interpreting the constitution, the justices and people as a whole, continue thinking about the different options for interpretation. I believe this causes all those involved to think of things from more than one perspective and to justify their position more completely. Justice Felix Frankfurter stated that constitutional interpretation “is not at all a science, but applied politics” (O’Brien, 67). This quote further underscores the need for balanced viewpoints. The interpretation of the Constitution is very difficult to divorce from political beliefs or motivations. Both interpretivists and noninterpretivists therefore make important contributions to the judicial process. In my opinion, it is quite possible that the framers of the Constitution created a deliberately vague document, which would be able to adapt to modern times.
|
