Uh, the Constitution is based upon the words from which it is written. A whole lot of really bad judicial activism has come from attempts to insert morality into those words - because a socialist liberal thinks he's moral and religious conservatives are evil hicks.
As I said before, religious conservatives would do well to want constructionists on the court who would turn more matters back to the states - allowing religious conservatives to have more say in their home states.
I don't want a judge imposing his personal morality, either.
A judge should rule based on the law and the Constitution. Not on his own personal morality. He may be guided by his own morality to a point, but when they conflict (and make no mistake, they will) his personal moral beliefs must take a back seat to the Constitution.
Honestly? I don't really care if he's cheating on his wife. I don't care if he reads porn in the privacy of his own home. I couldn't care less if he's a homosexual (I doubt Roberts does any of these things). I only care if he is properly interpreting the law and the Constitution.
Allow me to shout the following, in case you're hard of hearing: THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION ARE BASED UPON MORALITY. "MORALITY," AS DEFINED, IS ABSOLUTE -- AS ARE THE LAW AND OUR CONSTITUTION.
As it relates to the personal morality of a Supreme Court Justice, what point are you trying to make?
So in other words, if the SC Justice is true to the Constitution, then morality will prevail. I believe that is the point we have been trying to make all along. The immorality enters into the mix when the Constitution is deviated from (Roe. vs. Wade for example). The problem is, Morality changes with time. There was a time not long ago when makeup on a woman was a sign that she was a slut. Once upon a time, bathing wiht soap was considered a sin. The principles of conservatism on the other hand, are timeless.
Y"ou don't want a moral judge, huh?"
No, at least not in the sense, you're describing. It's not the judges job to impose his morality, it's Congress's. Either they have the power to undertake an act, or they don't. That should be the judge's only role in a case like this. It's not his responsibility to decide whether an act is "wise" or "good" or "moral." It's only his job to say whether it's constitutional.