I hear what you are saying, and I too have my questions.
However, the framers of our country wanted politics to end at the front door of the Court. Once inside the Court, it is their responsibility to be as unbiased as one can be and interpret the sacred document literally.
However, we as humans, are incapable of being totally unbiased. So, we have to give it our best shot.
The decisions of the Court are not perfect, but I much prefer our court system to say one in some foreign country like North Korea.
The problem with the Supreme Court on numerous occasions is that it has been biased. The first two examples place commercial interests against any standard of justice. The last example I find incomprehensible. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics and justices cannot be voted out of office, but we can and should voice our displeasure.
Walkie, What is done in other countries ,especially other countries that do not respect the rule of law, has nothing to do with our courts.
I question whether the courts should interpret apply the Constitution literally. A strict literal interpretation leaves a lot of unfillable holes.
Thought I am very close to being a constructionist, I still believe SCOTUS justices should apply the words AND concepts the framers intended. I respect the court, though I do not always agree, and I trust their judgment to be as unbiased as possible.
As a sideline, I am often more concerned at the SCOTUS selection process than the rulings. Instead of selecting the best jurist, selections seem to be trending toward the best purist of either party. Scalia and Soto-Mayor are good examples.