Source: (2000) Oklahoma Law Review. 53: 161.James Robertson begins this essay with observations on the nature of United States Supreme Court rulings. According to the ârule of lawâ? tradition, the Supreme Court discovers the meaning of the Constitution and its Amendments through a closed system of general, impartial, and fixed rules. However, Robertson believes, this masks the real dynamics of judicial decision-making. Supreme Court rulings are more than interpretations of the Constitution; they are authoritative constructions of social reality. With this in mind, he argues that the Supreme Court has constructed as social reality a set of assumptions about imprisonment that renders inmates unworthy of meaningful, constitutional safeguards. To make his argument, Robertson describes the evolution of the prison; recounts the Supreme Courtâs review of prison rules; contends that the Supreme Court approach rests on a distorted view of the prison; and proposes three operational principles that should guide the courts in reviewing prison rules.