[BushMeister]

I don't get the logic here. The Constitution is not an obscure document. Yet we're supposed to believe that high-end legal training is required to understand it and "interpret" it.

This may come as a shock to you, but far more than the text of the Constitution is studied by Supreme Court justices in the performance of their duties, and in the formation of their opinions.

[AndyTheBear]

This may come as a shock to you, but far more than the text of the Constitution is studied by Supreme Court justices in the performance of their duties, and in the formation of their opinions.

True. A layman like myself wouldn't even know where to find the penumbras emanating from the Bill of Rights.

[Reactionary]

"This may come as a shock to you, but far more than the text of the Constitution is studied by Supreme Court justices in the performance of their duties, and in the formation of their opinions."

That much is clear. After all, we keep hearing about penumbras and about the "societal norms" of Europeans, don't we? And those forms of idiocy are usually put forth by an extra-brainy members of the Supreme Court with a degree or two from Harvard who are always considered to be "qualified."