It would be gross understatement to say that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is not a model of clarity. It is in many important respects a model of ambiguity or indeed even self-contradiction.

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.

But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities.

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

A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless.

If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?

For in order for capitalism to work -- in order for it to produce a good and a stable society -- the traditional Christian virtues are essential.