When liberals are in the majority:
“The Court follows the approach of cases in which objective indicia of consensus demonstrated an opinion. . .” KENNEDY v. LOUISIANA
When conservatives are in the majority:
“In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.” DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
Two Supreme Court rulings issued one day apart, the first creating law out of thin air, the second, interpreting law from the Constitution. Do you feel more secure when the law of the land can be manufactured at will? Or do you feel more secure when the law must be derived from the Constitution chosen by our ancestors, and sworn to be upheld and defended by public officials ever since? Can the liberal method even qualify as a “rule of law?” Isn’t it really a “rule of perceived consensus?”