Hermeneutics (I Had To Look It Up)

Kim:
Kim is confused....aren't the Supremes supposed to rule per the law/Constitution and NOT per the social and cultural mores of the times? Does NPR know this???!!!

Steve:
The Supremes' job is to interpret the Constitution. ALL interpretation, whether the Constitution or the Bible or whatever, is based on one's worldview and cultural norms. This is why appointing the Supremes is so significant, because that indicates what cultural norms are going to be used. And the recent effort by appointees to say that they are "objective" and don't use cultural norms to interpret are just being disingenuous.

Kim:
I thought the idea was to interpret based on the Constitution as per the original intent. But, apparently many think that the document was written with "wiggle room" for the ages to come.
As for Biblical interpretation, it's supposed to be done with a SOUND hermeneutic basis. But I don't even know if i spelled that correctly. Thing is, we are human and we sin, so there is human error, even with the most steadfast folks. No matter how much integrity I bring to Scripture, I am sure that I goof it up at times. That's one of the places His grace coems into play.
But getting back to the Constitution, if you want Supremes that interpret according to the way the wind is blowing at that time, you would definitely want a new crop in on a regular and more constant basis...they were talking about every 10 years...

Steve:
The fact is, the term "sound" (and that other word which I use often enough but I also don't know how to spell) is also interpreted. Thus, our method of interpretation is interpretation. I want to use the interpretation of the apostles in studying the Bible, but that's hard to do, and even that is disagreed about. What about a secular document like the constitution? Every form of interpretation is just a form of cultural values