When interpreting a law and applying it to a specific case, should Supreme Court justices take into account su?

When interpreting a law and applying it to a specific case, should Supreme Court justices take into account such factors as the circumstances that existed at the time of the law's creation, and whether those circumstances have changed? Why or why not?

Yes, and they do. However, most (maybe all) Supreme Court cases are matters of the Constitution, and how it should be interpreted in a given circumstance. Not only are the Justices a product of their times, they take into consideration public sentiment and the generally accepted ideals of justice.

Most laws are applied based on precedents, they become case law. Judges and lawyers look at how a law was interpreted in a prior case and aim for consistency. That is why the difference between a great judge and a poor one is how well they write their legal opinions. Because future judges will look to their ruling and try to find the specific details of a case that dictated his or her application of the law. Supreme Court Justices often have a dissenting opinion put on the books, too. The minority of Justices who disagreed with the ruling explain what their interpretation of the law is as it pertains to that case and what details of the case should have been more or less significant.

Great question. Sounds like an interesting class, good luck with your homework.