Some political commentators have argued convincingly that in recent years the United States Supreme Court has shifted from a liberal to a conservative interpretation of the United States Constitution. These commentators have characterized the court as a battleground between two ways of interpreting the rights guaranteed under the Constitution: the conservative position represented by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Antonin Scalia; and the liberal position represented by Justice William Brennan and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Some decisions made by the court have limited the ability of plaintiffs to bring civil rights actions, while others have limited the right to privacy and the rights of criminal defendants. Using the negative rights theory, defend the court’s limitation of such rights. Now using rational ethics show how such limitation might be considered unethical. (See Erwin Chemerinsky, “Constitutional Protections Under Attack,” The National Law Journal , September 13, 2010, p. 43. )