Is the job of a judge to uphold or interpret the law and the constitution?

So, does the Second Amendment mean that anyone can have any weapon, or is the freedom to bear arms connected to the need for the weapons for members of a standing militia?

If it's the first, then why did they include the clause about the need for a militia? If it's the second, does that mean they didn't intend for citizens to be able to use guns to hunt for food?

There's almost nothing about laws and the Constitution that are all that straightforward. If there was nothing to interpret, we would not need judges.

Well...if it's so simple, why even have a Supreme Court? The fact is, by the time a cases reaches the Supreme Court, it is very likely NOT to be so black and white and require interpretation, reviews of previous rulings, and discussion. If the case were so straight forward, the Supreme Court would likely choose not to hear the case - something they do with quite a lot of cases. In fact, the Supreme Court disagrees among itself often. It is NOT so straight forward. The Supreme Court exists for this reason - because it is not so straight forward.

There has never been blind justice in this country. That is part of the problem. I believe that there needs to be a remedy for the countless times minorities or the poor or just people with bad luck got bad deals. Once everyone is indeed given a 'fair' trial, sure...blind justice is great. But it's not reality. There are countless real world examples. The two judges in PA who were recently found guilty of tossing teenagers into juvi for cash is a recent one.

I guess I just don't believe it's so simple and I believe that is exactly why we have a Supreme Court.

If you believe that our current judges are doing that, then you might be mistaken. Interpreting the Constitution takes on different forms: 1 - strict constructionist -- sort of like literal Bible interpretation. How did the Founding Fathers think? That's how we should rule. 2 - applying to current reality: did the Founding Fathers foresee the world as it is now? I think judges who rule in this way try to apply concepts to rulings instead of exact wording. I don't think there's any way the Founding Fathers could have predicted the world we live in, and yet I believe they envisioned a document that would be flexible enough to handle any situation. Of course it's likely to change again. I support Roe V Wade as a ruling but not as a Constitutional amendment. I believe the country overstepped our authority to change the governing document when they made that part of our nation's fabric. I believe the same would be true of a Constitutional amendment banning flag-burning or gay marriage. Our Constitution as amended with the original Bill of Rights really did cover 98% of the issues we still face today. Of course women should vote, but a less restrictive interpretation of the original meaning always would have allowed that. Same for the black vote. So the last part of your question is the most important: INTERPRET. Not re-write, not legislate.

The constitution must be interpreted as times change. For example it mentions taxation but does not go into detail about the various taxes we have today yet it must be interpreted to see if those taxes are legal. Also look at the military, it says nothing about an air force so a judge would have to interpret it to declare the establishment of the air force as constitutional or not.

A judge should understand empathy but decisions regarding justice should be unbiased. Judges are not meant to be the tender friendly figures of society, they are around to take part in our system of laws.

You use the Constitution to make sure that laws are being followed. The Constitution has amendments. But there are states laws too. And local laws. A judge sifts through everything to make sure laws are not violated.

People have rights. When laws are violated, it means someone was harmed. The founding fathers created the Constitution to make sure that everyone is protected. If there is a question about that, then a judge steps in and checks it.

Get a copy online and read it. Right now, people are learning that Dick Cheney violated people's right to privacy (9th Amendment) by wiretapping,. He had lots of secret illegal missions. The 1st Amendment is freedom of speech, the 2nd is the right to bear arms because the British soldiers were living and spying in people's homes and it was awful.

The Founding Fathers wanted The People to rule the government (the Public Servants).

Let's see if the People can do that and prosecute Dick Cheney.

The reason the constitution needs interpreting, which is a judges duty, is because it was written in 1787. It's meanings were very clear to the writers at the time, but as I'm sure you know when you describe that table you bought, you know what it looks like but you don't tell the person that it's 47" high exactly. After over 200 years, time has hidden the original meanings of it paragraphs and it is up to our noble judicial system to find the true meanings.

Of course judges have and should have empathy, it's part of the human condition. We do not expect them to turn into robots. Justice should be blind, and yes, unbiased. That hardly covers all bases of what justices find themselves having to decide cases about. Constitutional interpretation is sometimes necessary and is part and parcel of what the Supremes must often do. When society has changed as drastically as ours has done, there are situations for which the Constitution does not clearly account for. Language has changed, and the definition of words has changed. When taking the language of the Constitution literally, it often has to be considered against what that means in today's world. Here is a good link that considers both sides of this argument:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c...

Perhaps in sentencing a Judge may have empathy but not in the initial decision. The entire purpose of having Judges decide the legality of an issue is to take emotion and prejudice out of the equation. That is why the Statue of Justice had a blindfold on.

If cases were to be decided by empathy, what purpose does the law serve? The Preamble of he Constitution says that one of the purposes of forming this Government is to ..."Establish Justice...".

*

Virtually every sentence in the Constitution needs interpretation when tested by difficult facts. For instance, maybe the clearest language in the entire document is the 8th Amendment prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment," yet many Republican politicians believe that water-boarding or electrocuting a person who refuses to provide requested information is neither "cruel and unusual" nor "punishment." The difficulty of being a judge is not reading the document itself. It is interpretting the words in the document when faced with extraordinary facts.

A judges job is both to interpret and uphold the law. The Constitution is far from straight forward, otherwise it would never need to be amended.