[liberallarry]

I think I'm saying what Scalia said - that every time you select a Supreme Court Justice you conduct a mini-plebiscite on its meaning. I think that's what Oliver Wendell said. I think that no matter how careful you are you cannot ever escape completely from human subjectivity. I think you're right when you say that the American people are the ultimate arbiters and interpreters of the document's meaning and express their will through the 1st and 2nd amendments, and with their votes. I think that the last sentence is not in contradiction with the others. I think that people and peoples make mistakes and we could very well be slipping into tyranny and dissolution and many of us might be unaware of it until too late. And, most important, I think that it's quite possible that I'm wrong in all my thinking. Why not? Most people are.

[Cincincinati Spiritus]

"I think I'm saying what Scalia said - that every time you select a Supreme Court Justice you conduct a mini-plebiscite on its meaning. I think that's what Oliver Wendell said. I think that no matter how careful you are you cannot ever escape completely from human subjectivity."

Whoever said it, it does not matter. It is a bad saying. A Supreme Court Justice is not elected and therefore is cannot be called a plebiscite of any kind. Even so "miniplebiscite" insinuates that there are limitations on judicial interpretation. As I have said above there is room for interpretation in any law, even a good one, because of the very nature of law. Laws do not provide for every circumstance, so that as new circumstances arise, a new precedent for applying the law is needed. Moreover, even in existing law, such as the Constitution, there is room for difference of opinion. But in order for it to be law at all, it must be agreed that the text of the law cannot mean whatever a judge WILLS it to mean. That is my critical point.

It may be said that every new judge constitutes a mini-revolution (not a plebiscite since judges are appointed). But let us stress the word mini. A tiny change in interpretation. When the Warren Court came to power, a supermega-revolution took place. They threw out the meaning of words of the Constitution and replaced it with their "living" WILL.

As opposed to other bodies of government, the Supreme Court Justice's sole duty is to guard the Constitution. But we have not guarded the guards as is our duty, and they have substituted their WILL for the Law of the Land.