How I'd voted:
1. Able to strike down laws that contravene the Constitution (though I'd replace 'able to' with must).
2. Interpret the law based on the Constitution (what's the point of a constitution otherwise?).
3. Justices are appointed (though I could consider elected Justices if someone could come up with a well-thought out elecotral system that could exploit the benefits of electing Justice (i.e. not being able to be appointed as 'favours') while still exploiting the advantages of being appointed (able to stad above politics and not be swayed by mob rule); but then the ball would be in his court to present such an electoral system).
1. Able to strike down laws that contravene the Constitution (though I'd replace 'able to' with must).
2. Interpret the law based on the Constitution (what's the point of a constitution otherwise?).
3. Justices are appointed (though I could consider elected Justices if someone could come up with a well-thought out elecotral system that could exploit the benefits of electing Justice (i.e. not being able to be appointed as 'favours') while still exploiting the advantages of being appointed (able to stad above politics and not be swayed by mob rule); but then the ball would be in his court to present such an electoral system).