Words Have Meaning. And Their Meaning Doesn't

It Is Difficult To Maintain The Illusion That We Are Interpreting A Constitution, Rather Than Inventing One.

Ever So Subtly, Without Even Alluding To The Last Obstacles Preserved By Earlier Opinions That We Now Push Out Of Our Path, We Effectively Replace The Goal Of A Discrimination-free Society With The Quite Imcompatible Goal Of Proportionate Representation By Race And By Sex In The Workplace.

Justice White's Conclusion Is Perhaps Correct, If One Assumes That The Task Of A Court Of Law Is To Plumb The Intent Of The Particular Congress That Enacted A Particular Provision. That Methodology Is Not Mine Nor, I Think, The One That Courts Have Traditionally Followed. It Is Our Task, As I See It, Not To Enter The Minds Of The Members Of Congress - Who Need Have Nothing In Mind In Order For Their Votes To Be Both Lawful And Effective - But Rather To Give Fair And Reasonable Meaning To The Text Of The United States Code, Adopted By Various Congresses At Various Times.

The Court's Decision Reflects The Philosophy That Judges Should Endure Whatever Interpretive Distortions It Takes In Order To Correct A Supposed Flaw In The Statutory Machinery. That Philosophy Ignores The American People's Decision To Give Congress '[a]ll Legislative Powers' Enumerated In The Constitution. They Made Congress, Not This Court, Responsible For Both Making Laws And Mending Them.

[t]he Enshrinement Of Constitutional Rights Necessarily Takes Certain Policy Choices Off The Table.... Undoubtedly Some Think That The Second Amendment Is Outmoded In A Society Where Our Standing Army Is The Pride Of Our Nation, Where Well-trained Police Forces Provide Personal Security, And Where Gun Violence Is A Serious Problem. That Is Perhaps Debatable, But What Is Not Debatable Is That It Is Not The Role Of This Court To Pronounce The Second Amendment Extinct.