"Smart by half" is a cool statement for today, but the job of interpreting the Constitution remains, as it was intended to mean in 1787, a certain fidelity to that Constitution's intended substance as an enduring protection for Creator-endowed unalienable rights.
In "When Jefferson Dined Alone," Professor Jonathon Gross of DePaul University (Steerforth Press, May 2006) wrote:
"At a gathering of 49 Nobel Prize recipients at the White House on April 29, 1962, John F. Kennedy noted that never before had such talent been assembled in one room, except, perhaps, when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." - See.
Now, as to the intellect and wisdom of Jefferson, perhaps the Court, as well as all the rest of us, might be advised to consider Jefferson's ideas on interpreting and applying the Constitution.
"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
Which is to be the more desired aim - "Cool by half," or to be recognized for great intellect and fidelity to the Framers' strict bounds and limitations on coercive power over the rights of conscience, property, and individual rights to liberty?
I’m actually yearning for Robert Bork at the moment.
We had a good laugh yesterday imagining Bork’s theoretical 5th vote.
This damn thing is BORKED!!!!!!