Juan Williams had some thoughts concerning this alleged point of confusion last Friday in his Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Over the past half century, regardless of whether a liberal or a conservative resides in the White House, the critical issue facing any Supreme Court nominee is where he or she stands on the political contest of wills over how to read the Constitution.

True enough.  But then he went astray.

Liberals regard the Constitution as a “living document” that lends itself to modern interpretations by judges, who may extend rights to groups not mentioned or considered in the Constitution or its amendments.

This is an accurate reading of the Modern Liberal position, but what they and Williams alike carefully, consciously elide is this crucial fact: our Founders and the Constitution’s authors also considered the Constitution to be a living document (no obfuscating quotes needed).  They, and We the People who then ratified our Constitution, included Article V explicitly for the purpose of that life.  And We the People are the ones, the only ones, to breathe life into our Constitution.  Judicial interpretation away from the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution only sap that life.

That puts a premium on the importance of judges and Justices applying the Constitution and the lesser laws enacted by our elected Representatives in Congress and our elected President as they are written.

The push-pull over the Constitution and the Supreme Court is a battle without end….

There is no legitimate push-pull here.  The Constitution does not belong to any judge, to interpret according to what he thinks it ought to say.  Nor does it belong to any Modern Liberal to interpret for his convenience.

The Constitution is We the People’s document, and it lives through us and our Article V.

Full stop.