[Sci Fi Guy]

Well, if it the Constitution you are on about, then you are wrong. The Constitution gives the courts authority to interpret the Constitution. To check and balance that power, the Constitution gives the legislative and executive branches other powers, and the people the power to amend the Constitution. Since there is no groundswell of either the executive or legislative branches nor the people in general clamering for a Constitutional amendment, there is NO Constitutional crisis, and therefore the interpretation of the Court stands on valid Constitutional grounds.

You cannot be serious. The ability to interpret the constitution is not a license to rewrite (or ignore the clear meaning of) the constitution. And yes it is possible for the Court to ignore constitution. And it doesn't have to be a "crisis" if the court ignores the constitution. If the court ignores the constitution to pander to public opinion, then there would not be any great outcry. If you recall this decision reverses a decision the court made 18 years ago. So unless we amended the constitution in the last 18 years, one of these two decisions has to unconstitutional.

[jlogajan]

So unless we amended the constitution in the last 18 years, one of these two decisions has to unconstitutional.

Neither of them was "unconstituntional." It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. By definition, their interpretation is correct, as the Constitution grants them that authority.

When you have phrases like "due process" in the docuement, you are going to have humans interpreting what that means. There really isn't a well defined meaning for many of these Constitutional phrases.

Your idea that the Constitution is some perfectly clear inerrant document is naive. People on this very forum, kissing cousin conservatives, disagree on its meaning.