[Do not dub me shapka broham]

The only debate that should be taking place-in my opinion-is between the "Constitution in exile" scholars and the textualists.

I might agree with the Bork/Scalia model-when it comes to legislative and executive discretionary powers not being encroached upon by the courts-and the Thomas/D. Ginsburg model-as far as upholding core Constitutional values is concerned, e.g. property rights, the correct interpretation of the commerce clause, etc.,-but I don't believe that either approach is wholly meritless.

However, I can't say the same of the ad hoc, politically expedient, self-absorbed approach taken by the Breyer school on ALL of these issues.

[LibertarianInExile]

Were it my nomination to make--and it ain't, and won't be--I would be in agreement. I don't approve of the Briers, er, Breyer/O'Connor camp, either.

But what do I know, being an elitist sexist ignorant extortionist Buchananite Libertarian fringe freakazoid?