It is not just how one views the original Constitution and Amendments but how one views all the caselaw since then - much of which is based on a liberal interpretation, some seeming to create "law" out of thin air.
IMHO, a moderate would look at all of it as settled law whereas a liberal would look at all of it all as good suggestions.
But a conservative would go back to the original law and make sure everything in between is not merely a house of cards. And if it is, his effort would be to reverse or replace the bad caselaw.
I agree with all that in principle, but in practice it takes a very unusual or special case to go back and reverse law. There is some precedent for it, but it takes years and years, plus a really ideal case that is not to complicated. But most important of all, you must have teamwork on the bench.
I'd love to see it done, but that job fall to Roberts now. it is he who can accept this case and build consensus on the bench to do it.
If anyone here reading what I just wrote and does not understand that Bush was trying to do exactly that by putting Miers in as a supporting roll for Roberts, then they don't understand George Bush!
This is why I argued for Miers and downplayed Janice and some of the others. I felt they would be prima donna's and not play team work as Scalia, Thomas and now Rhenquist's replacement Roberts will do.
This teamwork is needed to reverse case law. if it is not there, like it was in the Warren court and others, the court cannot make radical changes at all.
That was my hope for Miers......But........
whatever.....You try and sometimes you lose, even for the wrong reasons when you play this game of politics.