Specifically, I would hypothesize:
H1: There are at least two distinguishable dimensions: liberal – conservative, and output-oriented vs. input-oriented.
H2: Input vs. output dimensions predicted by humanitarianism and authoritarian (or attitudes towards rule of law) scales.
H3: These dimensions are better correlated for high-knowledge respondents than low-knowledge respondents, who are more likely to know how these dimensions have aligned in contemporary American politics.

Off Kilter: I don’t know why we expect mere citizens to have a coherent theory of Constitutional interpretation when at least one VC blogger is quite clear that alleged theories of Constitutional interpretation are mere masks for instituting policy preferences.

I think you can try to simplify things this way, but you lose valuable information. Both theory and preference inform the other. Theory guides what is acceptable (though not necessarily mandatory) and preferences can prejudice you for or against certain theories (though they are not necessarily incompatible, just less convenient).

By the way, Jamal Greene has written several excellent articles critical of originalism.

More important, the questions seem vague enough to allow for many sets of answers. For example, “should judges follow their conscience,” can be interpreted lots of ways. Someone might reasonably argue that a judge who stuck to the law even though the result seemed unjust was “following his conscience” in doing his duty as a judge, and of course that is perfectly consistent with “strictly follow the law.”

Similarly, “protecting people without power” can be interpreted as making sure that everyone gets a fair hearing, regardless of wealth or position. Who disagrees with that?

I’m not arguing that everyone took the questions that way, just that they are vague enough that screams of “inconsistency” don’t seem to be warranted.

Good grief! It’s a democracy. Public opinion is not coherent — ever. Why would democratic government of, by and for the people be coherent? As it happens, independence, empathy, strong morals, respect for the nation’s values as they are today, and respect for precedent really are all important values for a judge to consider. They’re hard to balance, which is why expect judges to be, you know, sage and judicious.

Well, of course! “The clear intention of the authors?” What the heck does that even mean? The person who wrote it down? The author(s) (note plural) who voted on it? What if one of the authors had an idiosyncratic definition? And so on. Cue up the intentional fallacy. Not even Bork falls for that any more.

Perhaps you mean “the text of the Constitution, as informed by it is original expected application (as evidenced by contemporary persusaive documents)?” Because if you mean something like that, then, well, you’re wrong again in your next statement. I would say that this is now the dominant mode of analysis among “lawyers and justices”, but is also tempered by this thing we call precedent (which was a very familiar concept at the ratification of the Constitution), which means that we don’t like to overturn settled law just because someone says “But now it might be wrong, because we have such a clearer view of the 1700s today than we ever did!”

Allan Walstad: The relevant question these days is whether Constitutional interpretation can properly overturn and reverse the clear intentions of the authors. Given what I’ve read at times on this blog and elsewhere, not to mention past actions of the Supreme Court itself, it appears that the consensus among lawyers and justices (not to mention politicians) has been a resounding yes.

This is how it happens even though the concepts of fundmental law theory say it is wrong. The supreme Court being a subordinate of the Constitution has absolutely no authority to interpret the Constitution. Next time you think they can try telling YOUR boss what his/her job is.

Feel empathy for the people involved in a case? 17 41 26 14
Protect people without power from people and groups with power? 52 34 8 5

So….

Combining, there’s 58% of the people think empathy is important, and 86% of the people who think it’s important to protect the powerless. This leads me to the conclusion that there’s 28% of the population that enjoys protecting the powerless without, you know, feeling any empathy. They’re just about the power. Or something.

In related news, 99% of people don’t think through their survey answers very well.

In making decisions, the Supreme Court should only consider the original intentions of the authors of the Constitution.

Forget the intentions, the court needs to remember national government was given limited powers while the states reserved unlimited domestic powers for themselves.

And yet 90% think it important to some degree to “Uphold the values of those who wrote our constitution two hundred years ago.”

Of course, if current law does not already uphold the values of those who wrote our Constitution two hundred years ago, a large majority holds internally contradictory goals. Rational ignorance strikes again.