If one examines the procedural rules established by the Supreme Court, there is nothing there that compels a justice to apply the concept of compelling interest. It is simply a judicial philosophy which is not universally followed and not consistently applied nuch like the terms strict constructionist or loose constructionist or any other -ism relating to any interpretational philosophy.<quoted text>
SCOTUS has established various rules to guide exercise of the power of judicial review as it pertains to the constitutionality of laws. Justices are by no means bound by these rules and they have evolved over time. However, the Justices typically don't outright ignore or throw them by the wayside due to the fact the rules are precedent and stare decisis acts to moderate abrupt changes in precedent without a legitimate reason for doing so.
So? The constitution gave SCOTUS appellate authority as to fact and law. That includes interpreting the meaning of laws and the constitutional which is the supreme law of the land.
On the contrary, it has a legal definition. However, as it is applied by individual or groups of judges in appellate courts, there can be some subjectivity in in determining how it apple to a particular set of circumstances. But that's an issue with the law in general, not just the principle of compelling interest.
I have no need to. Your view of how the constitution should be interpreted is not the majority view of jurists today. But feel free to continue whining about it, as that's a protected exercise of your right to free speech.
Will you also stick to debating the facts and refrain from your baseless personal attacks which would cost you dearly in any formal debaate. Let me add that calling somebody a whiner is considered a logical fallacy in the form of a personal attack. It adds no substance of value to any debate. You are also committing the appeal to popularity fallacy by stating that just because a majority agrees, it must be correct which we know is not nearly true much of the time. and anyway, do you have any proof for your assertions that strict constructionism is less popular than loose constructionism.