[hopespringseternal]

"Every time you're selecting a Supreme Court justice, you're conducting a mini-plebiscite on what the Constitution ought to mean," That's Justice Scalia. Since Supreme Court Justices are political appointees I interpret that to mean; "Every time a political appointment is made the meaning of the document changes."

Scalia's statement is not the same as yours. Scalia would be quick to tell you that the meaning of the Constitution doesn't change no matter how much people like you pretend it does.

His point, which you blithely ignore, is that people are constantly pretending the Constitution means whatever they want it to, and the political appointment of justices reflects that.

Writing in a right to abortion and taking out a right to bear arms outside of the ammendment process is judicial lunacy. The document stands, and any justice who ignores that meaning is first and foremost a liar.

Of course, that is a common liberal failing.

[liberallarry]

His point, which you blithely ignore, is that people are constantly pretending the Constitution means whatever they want it to, and the political appointment of justices reflects that.

The political appointment of justices of the Supreme Court is built into the Constitution. Why? Were the founders so stupid that they couldn't see the consequences?

"People like me" are citizens of the United States and always have been. Thus we're voters and participate in the selection of Justices of the Supreme Court. Were the founders so stupid they couldn't see the consequences?

If "people like me" aren't fit to decide the "true" meaning of the Constitution then who is? Only people like you?