While the ever-evolving interpretation of the First Amendment right to free religious expression currently extends to Muslims with prayer rugs in public school and prisons, future justices with an agenda may no longer see it extending to Christians in their homes.

Homeland Security’s new concern over “right-wing extremists,” including those who are pro-life, those who believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible, others who oppose illegal immigration and, horror of horrors, embrace state control rather than federal, has given us yet another interpretation of the First Amendment. The right to free speech, primarily guaranteed for the purpose of political dissent may soon not include political dissenters who display politically incorrect concerns with unpopular slogans on bumper stickers.

The Constitution is said to protect the burning of the American flag, but its guarantees haven’t devolved yet so that the display of it is criminal. Don’t think that couldn’t change. Our current president thought it inappropriate to wear the flag on his lapel while campaigning. While other American leaders have proudly worn it in the past, he called it a “false patriotism.” And his friends on the left agree. Newfound rights not to be “offended” together with immigration laws that have made it too tempting for some immigrants to reap the benefits of this country while disdaining and undermining it have made the flag unacceptable in many quarters. While their rights to claim offense may be protected by the new understanding of the law, our right to display the flag could well be threatened.

What’s at stake with the nomination of a judge like Sonja Sottomayor are real-life consequences for ordinary American citizens. What we don’t need is a justice taking the bench with the notion that somehow the Constitution doesn’t mean what it has always meant, who proceeds to twist it to reflect his or her own viewpoint—a justice like Sonia Sotomayor, the older, wiser Latina female, who in her own words “would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…” judge.

The dangers of her attitude are exactly why the Constitution isn’t “living.” Its principles were established to endure for generations so that such men and women, persuaded by their times, could not recklessly adjudicate while claiming “new wisdom.” Methods change, circumstances change, but principles and carefully-crafted law based on those principles stand like a rock for all time.

A wise Latina woman and a wise white man will more often than not reach the same conclusion: One reflective of enduring wisdom and not the folly of our times.