On the Third Hand

Things I don't understand: Consider freedom, a word that is a rallying cry for all kinds of actions that might suppress rather than engender freedom. What is freedom? How is it defined? If it means what you think it does, would freedom ever need a modifier like relative or absolute? Does the word mean the same thing to everyone? Robert Frost said "You have freedom when you're easy in your harness." My interpretation of what Frost means is that if the constraints of society and the limitations imposed on you by your body, beliefs, abilities, etc., do not rest too heavily on you, then you feel free. Can we demand freedom for ourselves and yet deny it to our fellows? The hand you feel lightly on your shoulder may be an intolerable burden crushing your brother or sister. If you think there is an easy answer, then you're reading the wrong post. Defining words is not always easy. If a definition is intended to inform someone, then that definition must

  Preamble Sitting members and nominees to the Supreme Court often identify themselves by a particular judicial philosophy concerning their interpretation of the Constitution or have some such label applied to them by observers. One purpose of labels is to serve as a code word to simplify the general approach that judge will use when applying the Constitution. Another use is to obscure intent, particularly when it allows the judge and her supporters to avoid answering difficult questions during the nomination process. With the enablement of the party controlling the Senate, such avoidance is practiced by nominees from both Democratic and Republican presidents. In my opinion, these labels serve little practical purpose except to alert a political base, nevertheless I will list six judicial philosophies, a perfect number that pleases me, for discussion. What are the most common of these judicial labels, and what philosophies and opposition do they suggest? First a disclaimer, (cavea