WillCAD

Yes and no. There are descendants of those slaves now sitting on the courts alongside descendents of the slaveholders. But the institution itself is much the same.

Unfortunately, no matter the ancestors of those currently sitting on US courts, the overall attitude has made a near-100% reversal from the original attitude.

Originally, such courts saw it as their overriding mandate to preserve, protect, and defend the rights and freedoms of the individual against encroachments and abuses by an over-reaching government.

Today, such courts see it as their mandate to protect the "greater good", even at the expense of individual liberty, and they seem to view it as a forgone conclusion that anything the government does is automatically for the purposes of securing the "greater good". Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a "greater good", there is only that which is good for each individual.

The most dangerous change in the courts' attitudes over the last 200 years was the introduction of the concept of "government interest." Government interest is treated by the courts as being more important than individual liberties. But in my view (and I believe it's a view shared by the majority of the Framers), government has no interest. Government has no rights. Government has only power and authority, which must be strictly limited precisely because of the attitude that "government interest" might be considered legitimate, or even more important that individual liberty.

But what do I know. I'm no Constitutional scholar. I'm just a guy who doesn't like having my freedoms restricted because of theoretical possibilities that people might abuse freedom to harm others.