[Wolfie]

If the Constitution means what is says, then why the need for the Supreme Court?

[LibWhacker]

If the Constitution means what is says, then why the need for the Supreme Court?

If the Supreme Court can say it means whatever in the Hell they want, then why the need for the Constitution?

[NittanyLion]

If the Constitution means what is says, then why the need for the Supreme Court?

As a remedy against new laws in violation of the Constitution?

[El Gato]

If the Constitution means what is says, then why the need for the Supreme Court?

Well, SOMEBODY, has to beat the legislative and executive branches about the head and shoulders with the Consitutiion when they trangress.

Looked at another way, the courts are the tool that the people can use to overturn Unconstitutional acts of the other branches, without waiting up to 6 years to do it, theoretically at least. Sometimes, as with the internet Censorship business of a few years back, it actually works that way.

[Wurlitzer]

"If the Constitution means what is says, then why the need for the Supreme Court?"

Because the supreme court is NOT suppose to interpret the Constitution it is suppose to apply Constitutional tests to the laws written by Congress.

Why would you need to interpret the Constitution anyway? Was it written in Spanish, German, French,....? If Lack-of-Justice Breyer is unsure of any part of the Constitution, he simply needs to take the time to read the Federalist Papers.

Something tells me, he does not want to know the truth.