This dissertation explores the complex relationship between time, history, and judicial decision-making in the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts. I address the Court's prevailing "present-past" orientation—a tendency to anchor decisions in historical precedent without adequately considering the differentiating power of time to alter the experience of living under the Constitution. This approach, while respectful of tradition, often results in judicial outcomes that fail to resonate with the dynamic conditions of contemporary society.

I interrogate this issue from a philosophical—as opposed to political—perspective by applying Henri Bergson’s concepts of "duration" and "simultaneity" to reveal the temporal aspects of Supreme Court decision-making. Bergson’s philosophy provides a framework for critiquing the Supreme Court's static view of history. When applied, that framework suggests that legal precedents should not be seen as fixed points but as evolving constructs that must be interpreted in light of current societal contexts. The dissertation contrasts the Court's historical approach with what I call a "present-future" orientation—one where the Constitution’s founding principles are adapted to the experiences of modern Americans.

The dissertation argues that the Roberts Court's historical consciousness, with its emphasis on static interpretations of the past, often constrains the Court’s ability to engage with the Constitution as a living document that must answer to contemporary contingencies. Further, the dissertation reveals a real but often overlooked dynamic of judicial opinion writing—namely, that precedent cases self-differentiate over time and thus must constantly be checked to ensure their continuing relevance to contemporary experience. This has significant implications for the Court's role in shaping legal principles that are responsive to modern challenges.

I conclude by proposing a method for rethinking constitutional interpretation—one that embraces the fluidity of time and history as integral to judicial creativity. This approach would allow the Supreme Court to better fulfill its role as a guardian of constitutional values in a manner that is both historically informed and future-oriented, thereby ensuring that its decisions remain relevant to the lived experiences of the American people.