Something is seriously wrong if the Constitution is so ambiguous that the Supreme Court justices often are split five to four in its interpretation. Some of the justices believe the Constitution should be interpreted literally as written; the others believe it is a living document that should consider the social changes since 1787.
It takes an unanimous jury verdict to convict a citizen of a felony. Are our laws less important? Certainly a court super-majority (two-thirds) is appropriate. Should a law written by Congress be so ambiguous that a super-majority cannot agree, then the law should be referred back to Congress for clarification.
Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. A majority bias can last for decades. An activist court will lead to the unraveling of the Constitution and undermine the very basis of democracy.
It is time for a new amendment to the Constitution: Laws submitted to the Supreme Court for interpretation that are not approved by a two-thirds majority of justices shall be returned to Congress for clarification.
George Powell, Fresno