He's just made to seem that way by taking his comment out of context.
Freeper Steelerfan was at that speech and here's what he had to say about the remark:
"I was at the speech and that is not what he said. As usual the paper got it completely backwards. His point was that all sorts of "rights" such as a constitutional right to abortion have been grafted onto the constitution when the document is silent about the issue. His argument was that such "rights", if they exist, are not constitutional in nature. He started the speech by explaining his four principles of constitutional interpretation: text; tradition; original intent and Permanency . As he put it, "we have an enduring constitution, not a living one." On the whole, and for what it is worth, I was very favorably impressed with the speech. "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/868606/posts