Originally Posted by
SonicFlyer
Actually judicial review existed well before that case. And judicial review is not the same thing as "interpreting" the Constitution. The only appropriate methodology is original understanding, what did the words mean to the people who wrote them when they wrote them down?
You’re right about original understanding, but the justices are tasked with determining what that is. That is where they try to interpret, or decide if you like that word better, what the original text means as it applies to the case before them. This is why decisions often go down conservative or liberal lines. Each side interprets the text differently when splitting legal hairs on a case. They are not trying to shape the law to fit an agenda, their decisions are based on how they think the case meets the letter and intent of the Constitution, each with a different view as to what that is. Once they rule, that case often has a direct impact on the law.