In trying to explain to his fellow Senators, in order to generate loathing amongst igorant C-SPAN viewers for liberals, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama attempts to explain a "Post-Modernist" school of judicial legal philosophy, and fails. One wonders whether or not he read about this particular philosophy in Reader's Digest, the simplistic brush with which he attempts to paint the left. It would appear he'd stuck himself in the eye with it.
Distant words are not set in stone, like the Originalists would have you believe. There never was a unanimous understanding of every phrase, clause and word of the Constitution. In that sense, since a phrase like "well-regulated" (from the 2nd amendment) wasn't defined in exacting detail in timeless language, it can be found to have multiple interpretations, and, in so far as the reading is within the gray space created, the multiple readings may have equal standing. That surely doesn't mean, as Senator Sessions suggested, that the left establishment is training lawyers to say they can find any meaning they desire in law. What a canard. What a fraud.
Senator Sessions lies when he says that Janice Rogers Brown wrote "the dissent" in San Remo Hotel. The Senator lies when he says it was 4-3, it was 4 Concurring, 2 who concur and dissent, and no one joined Brown's dissent.(Word Doc)