[tdadams]

How does world opinion effect the meaning of the constitution?

You say this as if our constitution isn't subject to any interpretation whatsoever. If that's the case, then what's the purpose of amicus briefs? Why are there two differing opinions presented in the court? Why is there a Supreme Court at all? If everything is so settled, so cut and dry, there should be no dispute and no use for a court.

Of course, that's silly and disingenuous. But no more so than the rhetoric of those inferring that O'Connor is subjugating the U.S. Constitution to European courts.

[stop_fascism]

As far as I can see, there are two reasons that the Supremes are needed. One, legislatures keep passing laws. Someone has to determine if they meet constitutional muster.

Second, new situations arise, and the constitution has to be interpreted in light of those situations. For instance, the internet is not mentioned in the constitution. However, it seems reasonable that those parts of the constituion that apply to a printing press apply to the internet.

In either case, how does one interpret the constituion? First the judges might try reading it. That is the Clarence Thomas method. If it is somehow ambiguous, you can go to the writings of those who created the constitution, and see what they meant. That's the Bork method.

The method that O'Connor is recommending is that you ignore the constitution, put your finger in the wind, and rule in what ever way happens to be popular. Today, that's European Socialist opinion. Tomorrow, it might be Scharia. In either case, its just wrong.

We have a constituion, that has served us well. If it needs to be updated, there is an amendment process. If I wanted to be ruled by European opinion, I'd move to Europe.