Originally Posted by klyph3
Popular whim? Is that what they call we the people these days? Isolating them from our whims seems to have also isolated them from logically interpreting the constitution.
As others have suggested above, whether isolation from popular whim is a good idea depends largely on whether one's own positions coincide with that whim. For instance, we only need to rearrange a few recent dates to imagine a popularly driven catastrophe.
If the question in Heller had been presented to a court popularly elected within the weeks following Sandy Hook, do you think the case might have been decided differently?
You made reference to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. You frame the current political issue, as many others do, in terms of corporate personhood. Yet, that is not the basis of the decision. The First Amendment notes that "Congress shall make no law" abridging the freedom of speech. The identity of the speaker is not a component of competent First Amendment analysis. However, in Citizens United Congress made a law abridging the freedom of speech.
If the worst I could tell you about the history of Supreme Court decisions was that they correctly apply precedent and the language of the Constitution without regard to popular will, I would be far more sanguine about the state of the court.