I've long thought that members of the Supreme Court
first decide what they want and then come up with reasons
to justify their beliefs.
This is similar to how most people behave,
except the Justices pretend they do so because that is
what the Constitution says.
In a
NYT op-ed several months ago,
constitutional lawyer
Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.
What has preserved our political stability is not a poetic piece of parchment, but entrenched institutions and habits of thought and, most important, the sense that we are one nation and must work out our differences.
If we acknowledged what should be obvious - that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions - we might have a very different attitude about the obligation to obey.
He gives several examples where justices and other politicians blatantly did what they thought was right in spite of the constitution and they all seem pretty reasonable in hindsight. And he also points out some other countries, like the United Kingdom and New Zeland, get along fine without a constitution.
There is also a very nice Russ Roberts podcast interview with the author at EconTalk for February 3, 2013. It's an hour long with a written transcript and especially informative when Seidman and Roberts disagree. Several more examples are given of how the constitution is used to justify whatever one wants or even ignored completely and furthermore he mentions that no where does it state that the Supreme Court has the last word on its meaning.