[fr_freak]

"...but that they inserted their own personal bias into the interpretation."

Every judge does that in every decision. As human beings, it's impossible not to.

I could not disagree with you more. The very purpose of a judge is to remain an impartial referee. You may argue that it is humanly impossible to purge all biases from yourself as you review law and procedure, but interpreting a law or procedure contrary to how it is written in order to suit your own agenda is an entirely different thing. For instance, if I were a state judge in a state where marijuana was illegal, regardless of my opinion that marijuana should be legal, I could not honestly set a dealer free because I have decided that marijuana shouldn't be illegal. If I do, I am no longer clarifying law, or even interpreting it; I am now dictating what the law is and ignoring the actual written law. That is the essence of what the justices are doing, with this case and others.

[BikerNYC]

It is impossible for a person to determine whether or not a punishment is "cruel and unusual" without that person relying on his "personal bias."