When you have justices like Breyer claiming that laws should be judged not on what the constitution says, but rather an "interest balancing inquiry", the SCOTUS should be scrapped.

Think I hit that 40 of King Cobra a little hard and I'm hallucinating? Check it out here in the Heller decision (pg 65 of the PDF).

JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny,rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interestbalancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdensa protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out ofproportion to the statute's salutary effects upon otherimportant governmental interests." Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem,because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the foundingperiod (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in theconstitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

Seriously, is that how some of these clowns want to validate laws? Fortunately he was smacked down in the next paragraph:

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration ofthe right takes out of the hands of government--even the Third Branch of Government--the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.