The more I see of this guy the more it looks like hardcore conservatives are in for a very rude awakening when he takes his seat on the Court. Not only did he reject the importance of original intent yesterday, he sent a clear signal that he believes in the idea of a "living" Constitution that so many conservatives have often rejected.
Quote:
Chief justice nominee John G. Roberts Jr. carefully avoided taking sides on many issues Wednesday, but he went out of his way at his Senate confirmation hearing to put some distance between himself and justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — the Supreme Court's two staunchest conservatives. And the issue was a basic one, with possibly great import for the future: How should a high court justice interpret the Constitution?
Scalia and Thomas proudly call themselves "originalists." They say the Constitution should be interpreted strictly, based on its literal words and its original history. Like other conservatives, they shun the notion of a "living Constitution." They say their approach is faithful to the Constitution as it was written in 1787 and amended since then. Scalia says, only half-joking, that he believes in a "dead Constitution."
This look to the past leaves no room to consider such contemporary concepts as a right to die or equal rights for gays.
Roberts pointedly said Wednesday that he disagreed with this narrow originalist approach and would apply the Constitution in light of today's concerns and understandings.
"I depart from some views of original intent," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Words such as liberty or equality should not be given a "cramped or narrow construction," based on "just the conditions at the time" when the Constitution was written, he said.
"The framers chose broad terms, [with] a broad applicability, and they state a broad principle," he told Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the committee's chairman.
He noted that the preamble to the Constitution says the document was designed "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
"It applies to modern times," he said. The Founding Fathers intended the Constitution "to apply to changing conditions. And I think that in that sense, it is alive … and applies down through the ages," Roberts said.
|
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines