If you believe the current adminstration's spokesmodel, there is no room for interpretation of the Constitution within the context of the rule of law that ends in "new" law. Take a look:
Q Why is it that most judges who have the personal view that abortion ought to be legal end up finding in the law that it should be legal, and most judges who have personal views, religious or otherwise, that it's wrong, and shouldn't be legal, end up finding in the law that it's illegal?In fact, Scotty is wrong here. The true purpose of the Supreme Court is overt. Indeed, it is to make difficult rulings on complicated cases while interpreting the constitution amid the existing rule of law. Here's a quote from their own documentation:
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know which specific instance you're referring to. I mean, I haven't done that kind of analysis myself. But I know what the American people want. The American people want judges that are going to interpret our Constitution and our laws and not make law from the bench. That's what the role of a judge is. The role of a judge is to look at the facts and look at the law and then apply the law. And Harriet Miers is someone who recognizes that ideology and religion have no role to play when you're making decisions on the bench. That's what the American people expect in a Supreme Court nominee or any judicial nominee.
The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court crucial responsiblity in assuring individual rights, as well as maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations."