The Supreme Court is not the impetus for constitutional change - we are.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.
Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.
But the Supreme Court does not make sweeping changes in constitutional law by accident, or by its own design. Rather, the Court is limited to deciding the cases that the parties ask the Court to decide.
The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare. Nor should this Court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven for reform movements.
The Supreme Court is not elected, and it is therefore not a proper arbiter of social policy.
The Supreme Court, once in existence, cannot be abolished, because its foundation is not in an act of the legislative department of the Government, but in the Constitution of the United States.
I don't believe in altering the Constitution.
The Supreme Court needs jurists, not politicians.
None of us takes amending the Constitution lightly. The plain fact is this amendment has been exhaustively studied and it really is time to act.
The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.