When the Supreme Court moved to Washington in 1800, it was provided with no books, which probably accounts for the high quality of early opinions.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We current justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as 20th-century Americans.
Many voters think about the makeup of the Supreme Court when they are choosing a president. The justices deal not only with constitutional issues but also with social issues that were unknown to the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution more than 200 years ago.
Washington presided at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and is often credited with its success. But he had no known part in drafting its provisions.
The Founding Fathers provided a way to reverse unpopular Supreme Court decisions: a constitutional amendment.
When I went to law school, which after all was back in the dark ages, we never looked beyond our borders for precedents. As a state court judge, it never would have occurred to me to do so, and when I got to the Supreme Court, it was very much the same. We just didn't do it.
I happen to miss the Constitution; I thought it was a good document.
I think the Supreme Court has not yet caught up to an era in which one keeps one's papers in a cloud, not a castle.
I've never really read any books about Washington, neither the politics nor the city.
Supreme Court arguments and decisions are fascinating to a few of us and really pretty boring to most.
The Constitution did not even go into effect when Washington was inaugurated first President. The wisest men knew that it was only a figment of the imagination then.