Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Evolution, and the Supreme Court

I've been trying to formulate (and express) a coherent opinion on just what I wanted in a supreme court nominee. Not that anybody in particular might care, but nevertheless, here it is. If you've been reading this blog, you might wonder what my quandary is, but there is one. Simply, would we want a judge who would simply interpret the constitution as it was originally intended, or do we want a judge who would apply God's law in interpreting the constitution (perhaps beyond the intent of the writers)?

Clearly, the liberals (you know who you are) don't want either. The media lumps the two together, and many conservatives (which, except for the liberal tendencies of most conservatives, I would consider myself) would choose the latter. The first choice though (simply interpret) should be neutral (see the Wikipedia discussion on evolution). This is hard to achieve, but in a Supreme Court judge, I think that is what we really want.

This would mean, for instance, that Roe vs. Wade would be overturned, but so would anti-segregation rulings. Would this be good? Yes, but other things need to change too. I think that individual states could legalize abortion (as many have already done), and the Supreme Court may have to uphold that. Some states may even choose to return to segregation, and the Court would have to uphold that too.

What is wrong here? It is us. That is, it is U.S. Until these things, which are clearly wrong, are outlawed Constitutionally, which would take an overwhelming majority of -Americans to want it so. Personally I think Anti-Segregation would be easier to get amended than Anti-Abortion (strange if you think about it).