This essay argues that Justice’s on the Supreme Court often allow their personal feelings to dictate a verdict on certain issues when it should just be the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that influences their decision. It appears to be an evaluation argument with a lot of definition in its contents. In the beginning of the paper the author, Antonin Scalia, defines the Constitution itself. He describes as being a living, ever changing document, or a dead, ever standing document that means the same thing today as it did back when it was written. Scalia does evaluate the problem in a very well written article that goes into God in America, Justice’s Constitutional duties, and the morality of the death penalty. I think it is a very well written argument that even got me thinking about some of the issues that are brought up.