An interesting article, this one.
Justice Antonin Scalia has this to say:
The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete’s sake, it is legal document, and like all legal documents, it says some things and doesn’t say others [...] What was 'cruel and unusual' and unconstitutional in 1791 remains that today. Executing someone under 18 was not unconstitutional in 1791, so it is not unconstitutional today.
So why, I'd ask, do we need a Supreme Court at all, if it's so clear? If it's so cut & dry? The article speculates that Scalia may be campaigning for Chief Justice, but it would be of an impotent court, I'd think, if his vision were the reality.