IMO, the resolution strikes the heart of the difference in judicial philosophies that most Republican and Democratic appointees espouse.  Republican appointees generally believe that we should only use the original intentions of our founding fathers when interpreting the Constitution.  In contrast, Democratic appointees -- well, the more liberal appointees, at least -- believe, as Al Gore stated in a 2000 Presidential debate with former Senator Bill Bradley, that "our Constitution is a living and breathing document, and was intended to be interpreted in light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people."  This could mean that the standards of human dignity and decency and human rights should evolve as values and standards for human dignity and decency change around the world.  Anyhow, here is the exact context of the Gore quote:

Q: What criteria would you use to select the new Supreme Court Justices?
GORE: I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living & breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people. The right of privacy, just to take one example, was found by Justice Blackmun in the Constitution, even though the precise words are not there.

BRADLEY: Other than war & peace, Supreme Court appointments are the most lasting contribution that a president ever makes. It is imperative to find people of real integrity and unquestioned ability, somebody that's able to see a context in the times in which they live. Not someone who's locked into a original interpretation of the Constitution as if 1787 is the year 2000. But someone who sees the law as something that moves to adjust to the times and can do so in a way that furthers the deepest values of our country.

Source: Democrat debate in Los Angeles Mar 1, 2000