Please remember that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 150 of earlier Supreme Court decisions on natural law. Is that what you would consider as someone being consistent and reliable in interpreting the Constitution?
“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, it’s meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted. it means now”. So said the Supreme Court in South Carolina v United States in 1905
I’m looking at the trend of the court to mold law rather than interpret it. Numerous statements from Kagan and Sotomayor have been little more than activist rhetoric and the twisted opinion from John Roberts turning the Democrat Commerce Clause argument on ACA into one of taxation was bizarre, to me. I am agreeing with Mark Levin on the need to end the lifetime status of Supremes.