Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, an unabashed political progressive, says that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's jurisprudential method (originalism) did not constrain him, as Scalia claimed it did. The implication is that Scalia was result-oriented, like the "liberal" members of the Court Tribe so admires. Tribe thinks this is perfectly acceptable, even desirable. The Constitution, in his view, is a living document that must adapt to the times by being interpreted in light of contemporary values.
Tribe is wrong that originalism cannot constrain. That Justice Scalia abused his own method (let's assume for the sake of argument that he did this) doesn't mean that originalism, properly followed, cannot constrain. How could it not constrain? It requires that the judge interpret the Constitution in light of what was understood by its drafters and ratifiers. Any method of constitutional interpretation can be abused, just as any normative ethical theory can be abused. A method should be evaluated as properly applied, not as improperly applied.
Incidentally, Tribe says that some people are saying that Barack Obama should not nominate someone to the Court:
For literally the first time in American history, the party in control of the Senate is demanding that the president violate his constitutional duty to nominate someone to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
I haven't heard anyone say that. Have you? What people are saying is that, once Obama nominates someone, the Senate should either (1) refuse to hold hearings, (2) refuse to vote, or (3) vote against confirmation. The Senate has an explicit constitutional right to do the third of these things, and there is ample precedent for doing the first and second.
