A letter-writer to Salon makes the same point that I did a few posts back.

Brian C. Anderson, senior editor of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, is quoted as stating that Judge Roberts "would be a justice in the mold of Clarence Thomas and will not read into the Constitution things that aren't there -- gay marriage, a right to partial-birth abortion, etc."

This is the exact opposite of the concept of constitutional liberty, as clearly intended by Jefferson and the Founding Fathers of our country -- the point is that what is not directly proscribed is fully within our rights as Americans, as long as it does not break the law. Are driving laws unconstitutional because there is no right to drive in the document?