Great read, thanks for posting. Stupid, but constitutional really could describe many things. I thought that this was interesting: No. Just six. That was a serious question! What I do wish is that we were in agreement on the basic question of what we think we’re doing when we interpret the Constitution. I mean, that’s sort of rudimentary. It’s sort of an embarrassment, really, that we’re not. But some people think our job is to keep it up to date, give new meaning to whatever phrases it has. And others think it’s to give it the meaning the people ratified when they adopted it. Those are quite different views. I see the divergence in opinion as to how to interpret as a good and healthy thing.Really? So if you had the chance to have eight other justices just like you, would you not want them to be your colleagues?