... How do you not mesh your personal views in your "interpretation?"
As a custodian of the law, you're not supposed to. That's why the nominees (most recently Kagan) are scrutinized by the hearing committee and relentlessy grilled on that very thing.
I think they TRY to separate their personal views from what is law but it doesn't always work that way (i.e. Ginsberg's STRONG dissent in Bush v. Gore)
... I have a problem believing they are infallible.
Nobody claims they're infallible. But they ARE the final word in countless legal battles and why it is the dream of many attorneys to have the opportunity to argue before them.
Back to the sandbox...
