Federalist #78

1. "And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws." This is a nice idea of what a court should be, however courts such as the Warren, and Berger courts obviously show one sided rulings. 
2. "that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution;" I feels as though they may not be the most dangerous but definitley the most countreversial. Sometimes rulings  infringe on the rights of others and most people would pick a different verdict in some cases. 
3. "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing." The constitution is manipulated so far sometimes it seems like it amounts to nothing but a blockade on personal agendas. 
4. "That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws." This is one of the best things incorporated into this paper. I agree that justices should serve for life this way they do not serve just to get re-elected by make rulings based on true thought. 
5. "But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws." The country is founded on partial laws, Alexander Hamilton is very hypocritical.

Questions:

If Alexander Hamilton was alive today would he say that the Constitution is respected or abused today?

What court cases would Hamilton agree/disagree with?

Is abortion not a clear violation of the unalienable rights such as "Life"?

Should a hate speech clause be amended into the constitution ?

Why did the Constitution say all men all created equal but not insure the rights of all people?