[TheRealThing]

I find your post to be rather confusing. and your admitted lack of expertise on the subject is apparent. I said that Sotomayor is a cafeteria Catholic. When compared to the other Catholics on the court, that is rather obvious. I never said that she, or any other justice, had to rule in accordance with their alleged religious identity. She certainly does not. But, that is her choice and that is why she was appointed in the first place.

I have posted on several occasions that the justices should interpret the US Constitution as it is written and as intended by the framers and not expanded to suit the whims of individuals.On the other hand, it would be naïve of you to believe that the heredity, personal experiences, and personal philosophies of the justices don't play a role in their decisions. Obviously, they do and that has always been the case.

I suspect that no justice would actually, in his/her eyes, "lie as to the constitution". It is, in the end, a matter of interpretation of the text of the document aided by precedent. Conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution. What is say is what it means. If you don't like it, amend it as provided in the constitution itself. Liberals believe in a broad interpretation in which the text is "revised" to suit the times as seen by those liberals.

What does the US Constitution actually "say"? It says what five of the nine justices say it says. And, for those who believe in following the true intent of the framers, that fact is troublesome.

I like the words of Thomas Jefferson---- "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."