Every case argued before the Court in which an evolving interpretation of the Constitution was used was found to be overwhelmingly accepted and with little to no negative consequences. Cases like Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, or Obergefell v. Hodges, demonstrate that social pressure somehow influences the decisions made by the court. If not, how could one explain how issues like homosexuality or health care, which for so many years have been avoided and dodged by the Supreme Court, can finally be argued for or against before the court? Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist believed that the Constitution was structured with language that would allow us to interpret or modify it as new world affairs or social trends emerge. He once said: “Where the framers of the Constitution used general language, they gave liberty to those who would later interpret the instrument to make that language applicable to cases which the framers might not have foreseen”..