"Interpret" is just a word. In practice the Court has enormous power in interpreting laws, to the point where it can completely change the policy that laws impl

"Interpret" is just a word. In practice the Court has enormous power in interpreting laws, to the point where it can completely change the policy that laws implement, or strike them altogether. We afford deference to the Court because we believe it follows a constrained legal procedure that makes the word "interpret" meaningful: this involves taking into account precedent and past case law. This approach tends to prevent justices from "interpreting" the law in ways that effectively re-write the law according to their instantaneous political preferences. This court is receiving criticism (and serious loss of public approval [1]) because it has abandoned those constraints, and keeps overturning longstanding precedent in ways that happen to correspond to the stated political preferences of the justices (and the politicians that appointed them.) [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx