Who will be selected as the next media sensation?  No, it's not terrible "reality TV 'stars'" I am referring to, but the new Supreme Court selection.

In an article published on www.cnn.com, Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced he will retire from the nation's highest court upon the June recess.  The article mentions several references by Republicans and conservatives who, after believing his selection would move the Court toward a more conservative mindset, became disappointed by his somewhat liberal views and written Court opinions.  One blogger went further in his statement:
 
                   "Justice Souter will never escape the label of having been an enormous disappointment, a traitor to the right," said Thomas
                    Goldstein, a Washington appellate attorney and founder of Scotusblog.com. "It instead created the opportunity to entrench a
                    series of more liberal rulings. So he became the right's greatest failure and we will forever hear the mantra 'No More Souters'
                    from conservatives."

However, Souter's -and the other Supreme Court Justices- role on the Court is not designed to interpret the Constitution the same way that writers interpret Huckleberry Finn.  Although a judge needs to interpret the Constitution, treaties, and other prescient documents, they use facts, previous court findings, and precedents to come to a conclusion.  It is unfortunate that some people in our society feel that a document which discusses the national government's system of organization powers needs to be pored over for meaning and clarity the same way that literary critics examine Hemingway.  The language of law is designed and used to discuss complex ideas by breaking the phrases down to only one specific reference.  Law is not designed to be vague; if it were, court cases would be nothing more than expensive arguments about grammar, syntax, and word meaning.

Supreme Court Justices need to interpret the case as it applies to the legality of Constitutional practice as it applies to the previous court ruling, not based on whether an issue is conservative, liberal, moderate, leftist, etc.  Justices need to focus their efforts on weighing the application of legality and purpose of the laws to ensure protection of citizens.  If we are more concerned with "liberal, conservative, moderate" laws, then this nation is heading even closer to theocracy or dictatorship than originally planned.  Besides, we must consider that political parties shift platforms and views quite often, as a former Souter staffer states:

          "A Supreme Court justice requires you to make different decisions, ones that aren't always consistent with your politics. And
             remember the Republican Party of Nixon is a different party than the one we have today, and we have a number of judges who
             came out of that earlier Republican Party who may not be in line with the priorities of people in power in Republican circles
             today."

The Court acts with appellate jurisdiction.  This is where the public picks up on certain court cases such as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education.  However, the Court also rules on issues between states, citizens of one state versus another, and other items which the reader may browse from the above hyperlink.