Go John G. Roberts Jr.

**Adrian II** · 09-16-2005, 14:57

Originally Posted by The New York Times

Carol T. Powers for The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - "I think the framers, when they used broad language like 'liberty,' like 'due process,' like 'unreasonable' with respect to search and seizures, they were crafting a document that they intended to apply in a meaningful way down the ages," Judge Roberts said Wednesday.

He said he would consider not only how the framers of the Constitution understood those words, but also how courts have interpreted them and how they apply to evolving societal conditions.

That approach disappointed some conservative legal scholars.

**Ja'chyra** · 09-16-2005, 15:10

Eh, I'm a bit confused Adrian, could you put that in context a bit?

Cheers

**Adrian II** · 09-16-2005, 15:13

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

Eh, I'm a bit confused Adrian, could you put that in context a bit?

Cheers

Well, we have about three threads going at this moment where Conservative members are defending positions radically different from Judge Roberts.

And cheers to you too, mate

**Ja'chyra** · 09-16-2005, 15:14

Oh, right, fair enough, I tend to skim over the names at the tops of articles and just read the rest.

**English assassin** · 09-16-2005, 15:24

Well, making due allowance for the differences between US and UK law, and expressing myself with appropriate lawyerly caution, these "conservative legal scholars" must be morons.

Because here in the UK we have an interpretative rule summed up in the phrase "The Act is always speaking" (rather delphic, that, I admit) which in substance means exactly what Roberts has said. I suspect the US has exactly the same rule too.

Any other approach is pure fantasy for reaosn that are too obvious to be worth stating.