"Who should we rely on? You?"
If we're making snide comments, well, here's mine: I'm sure you'd prefer Ginsburg or Souter to me.
But of course, in trying to smack ME as some lousy Constitutional 'interpreter,' you fail to address my contention at all, which, to restate, is that the SCOTUS has overreached since Marbury, certainly since Dred Scott, and most recently in Kelo and Hamdan. To cite them now as authorities on the Constitution is to acknowledge their authority in these other cases--when they clearly have ignored the plain text so many times before they are untrustworthy arbiters of that document's meaning.
At least I would be a justice that can be predictably 'interpretive.' I'd be reading the language to mean what it says, not what I wish it said or what the EU thinks it ought to say. So if you REALLY want to know if I'm more reliable than a randomly chosen SCOTUS justice in the last hundred years, I can answer you seriously: unquestionably, YES. So yes, you may in the future defer to my view of the Constitution, thanks for asking. Let the usurpers know at your earliest convenience to leave their purloined robes on the bench and file out quietly, locking up behind them.