Everyone, Thomas has made reference to the notion that the Constitution, for want of a better term, is a living document, open to interpretation. That’s an incredibly contentious statement in today’s America, which seems to be divided between that statement, and one which begins with “If it was good enough for James Madison, it ought to be good enough for all of us”.
In addition it speaks to the scrutiny we place not only on sitting SC justices, but prospective ones as well. How do they view the Constitution? Should judges be appointed only if they pledge to uphold the Constitution as written and intended by the Founding Fathers, or should the court accept justices who practice judicial interpretivism; a belief that the constitution is a living document and should be interpreted according to changing times and values?