CNN's legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, described the court's current make
up as consisting of “four very conservative justices” and four just
plain “liberal justices” -- apparently not “very” liberal.

Applying the Constitution as closely as possible to the intent, by taking into account the other works of those who wrote it so that interpretation is much more clear........is very conservative?  Hmm, I think it's very American, period, end of story.   If a Justice doesn't do that, he/she need not be a Justice.

Observe.....as all of news media will talk about something that is
forbidden, illegal, and punishable in hiring, as set forth by laws in
our nation to protect people from it.   I'm talking about
racial/gender/age profiling, and race and/or gender preferences in
hiring, aka discrimination.  If you, as an employer, point out that you
may be looking to hire someone because they are of a certain race or
gender, it's illegal.  (except when the very same thing is cleverly,
yet obviously, phrased as a "diversity goal", but I digress)

BUT,
the talk in the media will not be that racial and/or gender preference
is bad, illegal, forbidden, or discriminatory, though if you do it as a
hiring manager (without the cleverly used "diversity goal" as the
backdrop), you have a high probability of being fired for it.  On the
contrary it will be talked as something grand and desirable and
necessary.  They know not what a Supreme Court Justice should be.  They know what they want to see and what is popular to talk about.

But let's all observe, as the media begins its giddiness over the upcoming Supreme Court nomination,
and how they'll openly conduct racial and gender profiling, have panel
discussions around those traits, speaking of nominees of a particular
race or gender, as government continually does the opposite of the laws
that it has written and requires that we citizens must follow under
threat of various punishment.  They'll speak of the possible nominees'
race, gender, and age, as if applying Constitutional law requires someone of any specificity regarding those physical traits.  It does not.  It never has.  It requires Constitutional law application
to cases that come before the Court, as that law is written.  It
requires applying that law to protect We the People from government
overreach.  It does not require empathy or emotion, as some presidents
and Congressional members may like to think it does.  Our Constitution is not a "living document," though some on the Court and coming to the Court think that it is.  It cannot be changed by the Supreme Court
- in theory that is - since we all know it has been tread on too often
by that Court that is supposedly there to uphold it as the Supreme law
of the United States, from which every other law originates.  There is
a written method to changing the Constitutions, and the Court itself is
not in the written equation whatsoever.

Remember, racial
profiling is very bad if you do it, but great if government does it. 
It's discrimination if you do it, but just another hiring trait focus
if government does it.  Perhaps one day we'll come to the saddest point
of all, when political correctness has expanded 100 times beyond the
silliness and sadness it has today, to a point where we will demand
that there be more than 9 Supreme Court justices,
because, after all, America is made up of people from so many cultures,
and "we must have a Supreme Court that reflects America" as it's
sometimes implied or said.  And of course when that is said, it is
speaking of mostly race and gender in hiring - again, a discriminatory,
punishable practice outside of government (aside from the the diversity
guise, that is) and a gleefully praised, discussed, and broadcast
practice within government, especially at the highest most publicly
visible and political levels.

Let the circus, aka the Supreme Court justice nomination process, begin.

May I repeat:

The Zombie Media of the Obamaics! 

• ABC,
• CBS,
• NBC,
• MSNBC,
• PBS,
• NYT,
• WAPO.... and
• CNN