The decision to be constituted as a democracy was a "Big","Great", "Huge", "Enormous" personal decision. Anyway you conceive it, the Founding Fathers had to have 'sacrificed' a lot of 'ego' and 'self-interest' formulations. Imagine being in a position, where you could have retained just a little bit of 'egoistic or self-interest power'. How many of us would have done just that. They didn't do that! Instead, it became a government "of the people", "by the people" and "for the people". That move installed an 'ever circulating form of government', 'of the People', that places primary attention on all the people in the Nation. It unites the Top and the Bottom of government into 'a more perfect Union' of People. "We the People...", is the engine of the Constitution. The 'motor' of democracy becomes the individual in his 'condition of togetherness'. The individual, any individual, becomes eligible to ascend to the Top of government. But, it has to be a government that follows the 'interpretation' of the Constitution. That places a great responsibility on the Third Branch. That responsibility is one of 'objectivity' in interpretive practices. So why is the Supreme Court divided into 'conservative' and 'liberal' which just happens to be Democrat and Republican? Why is appointment to the Court related to the Party affilliation of the President, and most important, why are Justices Party affiliated? Why can't they just be objective? Democracy is democracy, its not Democrat or Republican. The Constitution does not belong to either Party. The Constitution 'constitutes' the People into a self-government; no preferrential treatment for anyone nor for any Party. Of course, Party members tend to stick together. Certainly each is entitled to its point of view. But, both Partys exist within a democracy. So,in the case of a democracic issue, why doesn't a Party see the issue as being a democratic issue and not as a Party-loyalty issue?