Steve, remember how Al Gore claimed that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document"?
pbs.org
> Now, Jim, you know better than that. I have said I wouldn't support -- you can't even quit from smiling there -- you know this stuff so well. I'm not going to have a litmus test for a Supreme Court nomination if I have the privilege of making appointments to the Supreme Court, but I will insist upon justices who have an interpretation of the Constitution that's in keeping with the general philosophical approach that I share.
You know, I believe the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that there are liberties found in the Constitution such as the right to privacy that spring from the document, itself, even though the Founders didn't write specific words saying this, this, and this, because we have interpreted our founding charter over the years and found deeper meanings in it, in light of the subsequent experience in American life of the last 211 years of our republic, and a strict constructionist, narrow-minded, harkening back to a literalist reading from 200 years ago, I think that's -- I think that's a mistake. And I would certainly not want to appoint any justices that took that approach.
Funny how liberals can find deeper meanings in the 4th amendment when they invent the constitutional right to kill an unborn baby. Yet when it comes to the 2nd amendment, they have to interpret the militia clause in "a strict constructionist, narrow-minded, harkening back to a literalist reading from 200 years ago."
Like I said before, "pick-n-choose." The hallmark of judicial activism.
Tenchusatsu |
