Thousands of miles of column inches have been writen on the topic of originalism, and the question of whether or not Judge Roberts shares this perspective is receiving the same voluminous treatment. Wikipedia describes originalism in this manner:
The term originalism refers to two distinctly different ideas: One version, known as original intent, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what it was originally intended to mean by those who drafted and ratified it. The other version, known as original meaning, or textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution should be based on what it would commonly have been understood to mean by reasonable persons living at the time of its ratification.
Last week, Matt Welch suggested several questions he would like asked of Judge Roberts:
You’re on a lifeboat, but it can only hold 8 of the original 10 amendments without sinking, killing your whole family. Which ones go?
What about 20 of the 27? With that in mind, my question:
“Do originalists place more primacy on the bill of rights than they do the subsequent 17 amendments?”
Again, this may highlight my ignorance more than anything, but I am curious as to what you think.