In recent modules, you have gained a deeper understanding of the federal court system, especially the U.S. Supreme Court. The Courts decisions on constitutional issues like the Bill of Rights and the powers of the federal and state governments set important precedents for future cases. The rulings impact the way government operates; they also affect the rights and freedoms of individuals. In short, these decisions have very important consequences.

Given their significance, it is useful to understand how the justices reach their conclusions. The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the Constitution. How do they approach this important responsibility? There are competing philosophies about the most appropriate ways to make legal judgments. In this assignment, you will learn about two different philosophies of judicial interpretation.
Please do the following:
Step 1: Watch this discussion between former Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer. In the video, the two justices discuss their different approaches to judicial interpretation and debate the merits of each method.
Step 2: Write an essay (2-3 pages) that answers the following question:
Which approach to judicial interpretation do you think is most appropriate? Do you support the originalist/textualist approach or the evolutionist/developmentalist approach? Why? Explain your position and support your reasoning.
Your essay should do the following:
Define the term judicial review and describe the two approaches presented in the video.
Make a compelling argument in response to the above question. As is typically the case on these topics, there is no clear cut, right answer. You should, however, pick a side and support your position with sound reasoning.