"I see that in the hearings Charles Fried makes a point similar to mine. August company for me, less so for him. The professors complaining about Judge Roberts continue to fall into the same trap. The notion that the courts should be a beacon for some particular substantive agenda rather than simply for scrupulous adherence to the law and the Constitution is troubling, to say the least."Could it be that the complaining professors, and throw in complaining Senators, simply don't like the very idea of constitutional government?
Is there a meaningful idea of constitutional government if there is a "living constitution" as this term is defined today?