[dirtboy]

IMO, a SCOTUS justice can use other cases for guidance, but must give the most weight to their reading of the Constitution. So if a case came up that had already been decided (let's say Roe v Wade) by a prior court - and the current court felt a plain reading of the Constitution does not agree with the ruling - the strict constructionist method would be to overturn the previous ruling.

What's ironic about some of the conservative posters on this thread, complaining about a single constructionist ruling by Gonzales, is that the left is absolutely terrified of the concept of strict constructionism. So these few posters are playing into their hands by demanding that Gonzales states his personal views on issues, which will give the libs ammo to shoot at him.

[NittanyLion]

What's ironic about some of the conservative posters on this thread, complaining about a single constructionist ruling by Gonzales, is that the left is absolutely terrified of the concept of strict constructionism. So these few posters are playing into their hands by demanding that Gonzales states his personal views on issues, which will give the libs ammo to shoot at him.

Exactly. In my view, if enough strict constructionists are on the bench - regardless of their personal views - the country will shift toward a more limited government. Judicial activism benefits liberals to such an extent that a strict reading would inevitably help conservatives. To insist on judicial activism toward conservative ends is not only unconstitutional - it will harm the conservative cause itself by promoting more activist rulings and further diluting the Founders' original intent.