Supreme Court Activism vs Constructionism. 

Most of us would like to think of the Supreme Court in very positive terms - as the ultimate impartial arbitor of important legal and moral issues.

Impartial decisions?  The problem is, based on what I've seen over the years, I don't see this as really being the case.  If the judges are all so impartial - if they are so brilliant - why all the 5 to 4 decisions?  Shouldn't such astute judicial minds come up with the same answer nearly all the time (lots of 9 to 0 and 8 to 1 decisions)?  It seems to me that the decisions - often 5 to 4, follow the political leanings of the judges (which typically traces back to the party that nominated them to the Supreme Court in the first place).  NOTE: Likewise, determining which way a lower court decisions will go is typically as easy as finding out the political leaning (s) of the judge (or judges if a panel). 

Some would say that it's not really about political leanings - that some judges are constructionists, and some judges are activists -  that constructionism/activism is just an outlook on how one goes about interpreting and formulating decisions on the law. 

Definitions:

     Judicial Constructionism:  The practice of strict constructionism requires a judge to apply the text of the law in a formalist way -- only as it is written. This means a judge or panel of judges must first obtain a clear meaning of the text.  Once the text of a law is interpreted clearly, there is no need to draw further inferences from statutes of the law.  Employing strict constructionism is one way for conservative judges to practice judicial restraint.

     Judicial Activism:    Describes judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law.   It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.

Actually, ajudicating under the Judicial Activism definition (above) sounds a lot to me like the what sometimes seems to be the liberal mantra -  "the ends justifies the means". - justify (force fit) whatever issue you're reviewing to reach the decision you politically want.

Comments:  

1.  I think that any reasonably impartial person would be forced to admit that judicial decisions made by Judicial Activists (typically liberal judges) are often politically related decisions, and are not impartial (unbiased) reviews of the applicable laws (or the constitution), and, as such, do not lend credibility to the decisions of the court involved.

2.  I wait with bated breath for a technological breakthrough that gives us a lie detector test that no one can beat.  This device would come in extremely handy worldwide for judges, politicans, and criminals (people accused of being criminals).