Certainly one cannot ban cross burning in the sanctity of his bedroom.

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.

What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?

Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that 'established by the State' means 'established by the State or the Federal Government,' the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as "inartful drafting.' This Court, however, has no free-floating power 'to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.'

That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things.

Day by day, case by case, the Supreme Court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.

People look at rights as if they were muscles — the more you exercise them, the better they get.