"AS I SEE IT"
Volume 8, Number 9, September 2005
“I too will have my say; I too will tell what I know.
For I am full of words, and the spirit within me compels me;
Inside I am like bottled-up wine, like new wineskins ready to burst.
I must speak and find relief; I must open my lips and reply.
I will show partiality to no one. Nor will I flatter any man.”
[“As I See It” is a monthly electronic magazine compiled and edited by Doug Kutilek. Its purpose is to address important issues of the day and to draw attention to worthwhile Christian and other literature in order to aid believers in Jesus Christ, especially pastors, missionaries and Bible college and seminary students to more effectively study and teach the Word of God. The editor’s perspective is that of an independent Baptist of fundamentalist theological persuasion.
AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at: DKUTILEK@juno.com. You can be removed from the mailing list at the same address. Back issues sent on request. All back issues may be accessed at http://www.KJVOnly.org
All articles are by the editor (unless otherwise noted) and are copyrighted but may be reproduced for distribution, provided the following conditions are met: 1. articles must be reproduced in unedited, unabridged form; 2. the writer must be properly credited; and, 3. such reproduction must be for free distribution only. Permission to distribute in any other form must be secured in writing beforehand. Permission for reproduction in Christian print periodicals will generally be given.]
This issue of “As I See It” goes out nearly 2 weeks late due to incessant battles with computer problems for the past 4 weeks--first some nasty viruses that took about 20 hours to purge from the system, followed a week later by a lightning storm that irremediably corrupted some basic code in the computer, necessitating the purchase of a new unit, which in spite of my paying for expedited shipping, took nearly a full week to ship from Austin to Wichita--less than 500 miles. So far, every transition from an old to a new computer (this was the third) has been nightmarish, with each succeeding experience exponentially worse than the previous one. Enough to make a Baptist believe in purgatory, here and now!
Spurgeon on the Prophecy Hucksters
“I consider very often that the inferences drawn from prophecy are very little better, after all, than the guesses of the Norwood gipsey, and that some people who have been so busy in foretelling the end of the world, would have been better employed if they had foretold the end of their own books, and had not imposed on the public by predictions, assaying to interpret the prophecies, without the shadow of a foundation.”
New Park Street Pulpit
Volume 4, 1858, p. 405
“I do not find many souls have been converted to God by exquisite dissertations about the battle of Armageddon, and all those other fine things; I have no doubt prophesyings are very profitable, but I rather question whether they are so profitable to the hearers, as they may be to the preachers and publishers. I conceive that among religious people of a certain sort, the abortive explanations of prophecy issued by certain doctors gratify a craving which in irreligious people finds its food in novels and romances. People have a panting to know the future; and certain divines pander to this depraved taste, by prophesying for them, and letting them know what is coming by-and-by. I do not know the future, and I shall not pretend to know. But I do preach this, because I know it, that Christ will come, for he says so in a hundred passages.”
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit
Volume 8, 1862, p. 599
“ ‘Till he come.’ I must not say anything about that, except that he will come, and I think that ought to be enough for Christians. To my great sorrow, I had sent to me, this last week, two or three copies of a tract purporting, according to the title-page, to have been written by myself, prophesying the coming of the Lord in the year 1866. Now, you may expect to hear of me being in Bedlam whenever, by my tongue or my pen, I give countenance to such rubbish. The Lord may come in 1866, and I shall be glad to see him; but, I do not believe he will; and one reason why I don’t believe he will, I have told to you before: it is because all these false
twopenny-halfpenny prophets say that he will. If they said he would not, I should begin to think he would; but inasmuch as they are all crying as one man that he will come in 1866, or 1867, I am inclined to think he will not come at any such time. It seems to me that there are a very great many prophecies which must be fulfilled before the coming of Christ, which will not be fulfilled in the next twelve months; and I prefer, beloved, to stand in the position of a man who knows neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of man cometh; always looking for his appearing, but never interfering with those dates and figures, which seem to me to be proper amusement for young ladies who have nothing to do, and who take to them instead of reading novels, and for certain divines who have exhausted their stock of knowledge about sound doctrine, and therefore make up, and gain a little ephemeral popularity by shuffling texts of Scripture as the Norwood gipsies shuffled cards in days gone by. Leave the prophets to divide the
profits which they get from simpletons; and as for you, watch for Christ’s coming, whether it shall be to-day, or to-morrow, and set no limits, and no dates, and no times. Only work while it is called to-day; work so that, when he cometh, he may find you, as faithful servants, ready to come in to the wedding with him.”
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit
Volume 55, 1909, p. 318
From a sermon preached in 1866
Italics in original
[Note--My experience is that ministers and “ministries” pre-occupied with prophecy, prophecy, prophecy invariably become warped, distorted and corrupt. Witness Jack Van Impe as one obvious example, a once highly beneficial preacher who has degenerated into an object of well-deserved ridicule. And J. R. Church (Eighty-eight Reasons Why Jesus will Come Back in 1988; apparently Jesus didn’t read the book!). Need I note that the hallmark of Adventism is prophecy, their “hook” for drawing in the gullible? Ditto for Armstrongism, the Branch Dividians, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and numerous other cults. No one goes to heaven because of his understanding of the events regarding the Second Coming. Rather, it is a clear understanding regarding what Jesus accomplished in His First Coming which determines a person’s eternal destiny. All things in their due and proper proportion.--Editor]
Ezekiel 16:12 in the KJV: a Question
I had a question on the KJV at Ezek.16:12. All versions that I checked had “ring in the NOSE.” Except the KJV. Is there a reason why they didn't want to insert NOSE or NOSTRIL in the text? Was there maybe some kind of cultural taboo in that time period, so they inserted forehead.?
I find the following regarding English versions, tracing backwards from 1611, with the word in question italicized:
These three versions are ostensibly based on the Hebrew text.
As noted, instead of “forehead” (or, “face”) as found in these older English versions, more recent English versions have “nose” or something akin to it, viz.--
Thus far the English. But what does the original Hebrew have, and how can we account for the divergence in the English versions?
The Hebrew text reads “Va’etten nezem ‘al-‘appek,” literally “I gave a ring upon your nose.” The singular ‘aph, the word at issue here, means literally the nose or individually, a nostril, as the organ of breathing and smelling, and a place for attachment of ornaments (there are several Biblical examples of the mention of nose rings besides Ezekiel 16:12--Genesis 24:47; Isaiah 3:21, where the KJV reads “nose jewels”; cf. 2 Kings 19:28 = Isaiah 37:29).
By extension, this word when used in the dual number (rather than a plural) indicates the paired nostrils, and more broadly, the area around the nose, i.e., the face (particularly and often in a context of bowing with the face, more literally, with the nose, to the ground).
By further extension, the word can and most often (by a wide margin) does mean “anger, fury, rage,” since in such a state the nostrils flare, the rush of air through them is more forceful and audible, etc.
Of the well more than a hundred examples of this word in the Hebrew OT, there are no other places where the KJV renders the word “forehead,” and frankly their so rendering it here is inexplicable, judging from the Hebrew. Indeed, the KJV shares its rendering with the one prior English version--Coverdale--which alone of those available to the KJV translators was not based on the Hebrew text in Ezekiel.
What do we find in versions ancient or contemporary that might have influenced the KJV (and earlier, Coverdale)?
Of the ancient versions I examined, then, only the Syriac, but not the Greek, Aramaic or Latin versions, is a possible source of the rendering of Coverdale and the KJV.
Of Reformation era foreign language versions that the KJV translators may have consulted, I have access to the translation of Luther (1534 and 1545 editions), and the Spanish version of Reina (1569) and revised by Valera (1602).
The sum of the matter is: the ancient Peshitta Syriac version, contrary to the original Hebrew, reads, “between your eyes” i.e., “on your forehead.” This mistake likely misled Luther (through the influence of his fellow-translators), and Coverdale was in turn misled by Luther. Ultimately, the KJV, following either Luther or Coverdale or both instead of the Hebrew text, erroneously gave “forehead” where the Hebrew plainly said “nose.” The various modern English versions, out of deference to the Hebrew, set the matter right by giving “nose” or “nostril.”
The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century by Thomas L. Friedman. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2005. 488 pp., hardback. $27.50
This is one of those books with a too-cutesy title. By “Flat” Friedman means that many of the barriers separating people and nations have fallen and the world, to use an older metaphor, has “shrunk” once again. Friedman works the metaphor “flat” to death in the process of writing nearly 500 pages.
“Globalization” of manufacturing, information and communication in a real sense is a new phenomenon of the last 15 years. In truth, real “globalization” was impossible as long as the Iron Curtain isolated Eastern Europe from interplay with the rest of the world. This barrier fell in 1989 from the Baltic to the Black Seas. And China’s self-imposed economic and cultural isolation, along with India’s self-enslaving state socialism kept those two most populous nations out of the world “loop” as well. These barriers likewise fell in the 1990s, as China and India both embraced a form of capitalism, though in the former case especially not adopting anything like democratic government. At the present, almost the only nations not participating in the world economy in any meaningful way are the dictatorial regimes of North Korea, Cuba, Moslem states generally (with exceptions), and some of the poorest of the poor underdeveloped nations of Africa (usually ruled by tyrants) and elsewhere.
But removal of barriers to the former Soviet bloc, India, and China, while necessary conditions, are not sufficient conditions for globalization. Another crucial factor is the world being hard-wired with massive communications capacity in the form of fiber optic cable, which was vastly over-installed in the 1990s (something like 10 times conceivable need), an error of judgment by the communications companies (forcing the bankruptcy of several and the near bankruptcy of others) but a boon to weaving the world closer and tighter with bonds of silicon. This gross over-capacity is the factor that makes out-sourcing of American call centers to India possible, and the relocation of all kinds of intellectual work (research, accounting, architecture) to any place in the world best suited for it. Since every kind of intellectual property--writing, computer programs, pictures, music, and all else--is or is being digitized, it can be transmitted anywhere on earth at the speed of light. Close collaboration on any kind of mind work by any given individuals in any given locations is now possible, and actually occurring.
The posting to the internet of an incomprehensibly huge and expanding mass of information means that no longer is access to a university or large library (which formerly meant presence in a Western nation) an absolute necessity to the acquisition of knowledge. Any person in China or India or, for that matter, Uzbekistan or Mali who has access to a computer and the internet is as richly provided with information about almost everything as is the student at an American Ivy League university. No longer does the West have a very long leg up on the rest of the planet in access to knowledge and information.
With the falling of political barriers and the creation of the information web, manufacturing and distribution of goods and services have been revolutionized. Supply chains for manufactured goods, whether simple household goods or complex computers, can literally stretch from one end of the world to the other (Friedman notes the example of his own Dell desktop computer, which has 400 companies in 30 different countries in its supply chain of components). The king of mastering the supply chain is of course Wal-Mart which created the process and now handles some 2.3 billion cartons of merchandise per year, all tracked electronically and automatically. Shippers UPS and FedEx have done their part in introducing instant electronic tracking for every single one of the millions of parcels they handle daily (why, I wonder after my bags were lost for a day on my latest trip to Romania, can’t the airlines introduce the same kind of tracking, so that the traveler can via the internet discover exactly where his bags were last located; mine spent the night in Milan, Italy, I discovered later; I spent that night in badly-fitting borrowed clothes).
Friedman notes some rather disturbing trends. In time past, America’s pre-eminence in technical fields was due to our superiority and dominance in the training of skilled technical workers--engineers and scientists. But America is training an increasingly smaller percentage of the world’s scientists and engineers. The dominant nations at producing such technical specialists are China and India. While lazy and unmotivated American students shy away from these math-heavy disciplines, Chinese and Indian students dominate such programs, even in American universities. In the recent past, America made up for its short-fall of homegrown talent by importing the best and the brightest from other countries. But now, with the internet-enabled capacity to use those minds without bringing the bodies physically to the States, we are destined to have a shrinking supply of such people, at the very time when other nations are rapidly expanding their capacity. Without a sizeable pool of future researchers, discoverers and innovators, the result for America can only be a decline in these areas, and drastic negative economic consequences.
Though noting the failure of America’s education system (which produces vastly too many lawyers and MBAs and vastly too few engineers), Friedman fails to lay the blame on the wretched government-run public school systems in America which has gotten derailed in the past three decades or so by the “professional educators” who value “feeling good” about oneself over actual achievement and have dumbed-down curriculum so they won’t appear quite the failures they really are (public school math curriculum in Romania--where per capita income is under $2,000 per year!--is very much more difficult than in America, with American students lagging as much as 3 or 4 years behind the Romanians! Such a trend portends a future trading of economic status as well). The clearest and most immediate solution to the educational failure of government schools,--one Friedman never suggests (indeed, he mocks educational alternatives to “more of the same”)--instead of throwing yet more billions of good money down that rat hole, is to establish universal vouchers so that parents can choose whatever schools they want their children to attend. If competition works in the world of economics, it surely will work in the area of education as well.
One great necessity for massive investment in any country is secure property rights; anything less is death to foreign investment and development. If a corporation or group of investors is in doubt whether their investment of millions or billions of dollars in any particular country is at risk from violence, revolution or government confiscation, they will, with perfect reasonableness, look elsewhere to invest their capital. This explains why countries ruled by dictators--Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba, or those plagued with societal violence aimed at Westerners--almost never draw foreign investment; their tyranny and instability is a self-paved road to continued poverty.
The ease of starting (and terminating in the case of failure) a business is another crucial factor in generating a thriving economy. In some places--Hong Kong, for one--it is notoriously easy to start a business, and as a result, initiative is encouraged and quickly rewarded. In other places, starting a business is a pure hassle as the multi-layered government bureaucracies drain the potential new businessman of his time, energy and money. Such obstacles stifle innovation, and guarantee economic stagnation or regression. Friedman draws no such obvious lesson, but let this serve as a warning to us in the U.S. of the consequences of the strangulating over-regulation of business by the EPA, OSHA, and other government agencies national, state and local.
Very limited restrictions on the hiring and firing of workers, and the adopting of new labor practices is essential to economic expansion. If the government (or unions, for that matter--Friedman doesn’t mention this either) restricts substantially a business owner’s ability to make lay-offs, to transfer manufacturing “off-shore,” to hire people with the necessary skills (instead of by ethnic status or some other PC criterion), he is placed at an immediate disadvantage in relation to other employers. This explains why Germany, France and other like “Old Europe” nations have chronically high unemployment, even in times of world-wide economic booms. Government rules make it exceptionally difficult to lay-off or fire workers, or absurd limits on the work week hinder businessmen at every step. (And let me point out, since Friedman does not, that in America, federal employment policies parallel those in Old Europe--federal employees are almost impossible to fire, no matter how inept, unqualified or unproductive they may be, and even in some cases if they commit crimes. And restrictive union rules prohibiting innovation and protecting lousy workers--besides unions making excessive compensation demands--have harmed American industry repeatedly in the past and present: railroads in the 1950s, steel, autos, aircraft manufacturing, etc. in the 1960s and later. The present crisis of American airlines is a symptom of the same--it is the airlines with expensive union labor contracts that are dying one by one, while the innovative smaller carriers without that albatross are making money in these supposedly “difficult” times. Restrictive labor laws and rules can be tolerated in an environment of no competition, but when there is competition--for American railroads, it was trucking; for American autos, it was the Japanese and others; for American steel, it was foreign manufacturers; for American airlines, it was deregulation in the 1980s--decline and death are guaranteed to follow).
Friedman could be described as a “free trader,” who recognizes the obvious: the greater the flow of goods and services worldwide and the fewer the barriers to the same, the better off both suppliers and consumers are economically. But Friedman is also a political liberal, who sees government control and regulation as a good thing, of which we need more. The economic expansion created by the absence of government constrictions is viewed as a positive good particularly because it will generate more tax money for government to spend on social programs. There is a massive disconnect in Friedman’s thinking between these two things.
According to Friedman, the rage of Moslems against the West is generated by the frustration created by hopelessness in societies where change and advancement are all but impossible (note well: NO Al Qaeda terrorists have come from India, though some 150 million Moslems live there, the second highest number of any nation. India, unlike nearly all Moslem nations, is a democracy. With this fact in evidence, President Bush’s goal of reducing terrorism by establishing democracy in Iraq is very much right-headed, though Friedman, who repeatedly takes cheap shots at Bush, can’t see it). So, in essence, Moslem terrorism is scape goating the failure of their own governments and their repressive religious system and blaming the successful, free and open societies of the West, especially America, for the embarrassing failure of what they believe is the purest and best and truest religion. “All our problems are someone else’s fault.” If this analysis is correct, this sounds exactly like American liberals, who blame America first for everything, and whose own theories and belief system always prove an abject failure wherever tried.
While there is likely much truth to this analysis, it doesn’t explain it all. The most recent London bombers all lived in a free and open Western democracy where economic advancement was possible.
Friedman will leave the reader with much to think about. Globalization is, short of a massive war, here to stay. Of course, this also opens the door wide to the spread of Christianity to every corner of the globe, even in the most remote and restricted places. It is an interesting age we live in.
The Truth About Hillary by Edward Klein. Sentinel: New York, 2005. 305 pp., hardback. $24.95
The eight-year Clinton co-presidency spawned numerous books exposing the unending series of Clinton treacheries and scandals, involving both the President and the First Lady (America’s equivalent of the notorious ancient Israelite “first couple,” Ahab and Jezebel--the similarities are remarkable). Just because Clinton is now a private citizen, and “Her Imperial Highness” Hillary carpet-bagged her way into the U.S. Senate in no wise means the deceit, dishonesty and depravity have ceased. Klein’s book is a cataloguing of the latest in the Clinton saga, focusing on Hillary’s quest for the Presidency.
For the sake of completeness, Klein reaches back to Hillary’s childhood, her time at Wellesley College (where she became enamored with lesbianism; to what degree she may have participated is not publicly known), her embracing of Marxism and radical feminism in the late 60s and 70s (her first introduction to Arkansas as Clinton’s “fiancée” found her frumpily dressed, ungroomed, unwashed and malodorous, and sporting readily visible leg and underarm hair) and her days as governor’s wife and first “lady” of Arkansas. There isn’t much if anything new in this part of the book, indeed, not a few of the scandals of the presidential years are passed over in silence, or very cursorily treated.
Klein’s focus is on how Hillary used the Monica scandal to her own political advantage to enter the Senate, and is “re-inventing” her political image at present to prepare for her coronation, er, uh, election to the presidency in 2008. Though Hillary knew and has known from Day One of her relationship with Clinton 30+ years ago that he is an unrepentant serial adulterer (continuing unabated to the present hour), she posed as the victimized wife after Monica-gate, thereby generating widespread Oprah-esque sympathy for herself as though she were a long-suffering and much suffering victim of a cad of a husband. The truth is Hillary knew, through her network of informants and Clinton-handlers (who were assigned to keep Bill from contact with unstable bimbos like Monica, restricting him to a White House stable of “safe” and “discreet” partners) about Monica almost from the first contact in 1995--just as she had known within days of Bill’s forcible rape in 1978 of campaign worker Juanita Broaddrick. In essence, she massively and repeatedly lied about what she knew and when she knew it, strictly for personal political gain (as she did in 1992 concerning Jennifer Flowers). In fact, she in her Faustian bargain with Clinton has turned a blind eye to his gross, life-long womanizing, in return for riding his coattails to public prominence, riches and power.
And just here is the real irony of it all: this supposedly committed radical feminist, who ostensibly doesn’t need a man any more than a fish needs a bicycle, but can stand on her own and achieve on her own, would be nothing and nowhere had she not willfully placed herself in the shadow of an insatiably ambitious man, and for decades willfully accepted as the price of power the most degrading and debasing type of spousal abuse, then covering for his sins and crimes, all in hopes of attaining power through him. Remarkable.
It is good to be reminded what kind of person “the woman who would be king” really is, as the 2008 election cycle approaches
(note: there is some very crude language at times, no surprise considering that Hillary when provoked--she is easily provoked into a Springer Show type rage--has the vocabulary of a Longshoreman, with apologizes, of course, to Longshoremen)
The Supreme Court: How It Was, How It Is by William H. Rehnquist. New York: William Morrow and Co., 1987. 338 pp., hardback.
William Rehnquist, the recently deceased Chief Justice who served on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1971 to 2005, had just been elevated to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan when he wrote and published this book 18 years ago. Rehnquist thereby became the first and so far only sitting Chief Justice to write a book about the Supreme Court.
Rehnquist talks at length about his own year (1952), fresh out of Stanford Law School, as a clerk for one of the associate justices on the court. He also traces in broad outline the history of the court, its development over time, its achievements and some of its more notable mistakes. Unfortunately, in keeping with the custom of one Supreme Court justice never criticizing the professional actions of any sitting justice, Rehnquist’s analysis of court cases and history stops with the Fred Vinson Court (1947-1953), thereby by-passing the Earl Warren (1953-1969) and Warren Burger (1969-1986) Courts which issued a great many of the most controversial, intrusive and questionable decisions in the Court’s history.
Then-current (1987) sitting justices are each profiled, and the way the court selects cases to review is described.
Rehnquist does not speak in much detail about the matter of “original intent” versus “judicial activism” until late in the book (pp. 305ff), but does come down firmly and resolutely on the side of judicial restraint and adherence to the original intent of Constitutional framers. May his successor be like-minded.
A good “civics” lesson in Constitutional law is here to be garnered.
Some quotes from The Supreme Court by William H. Rehnquist--
“A second major fact of life in the United States during the winter and spring of 1952 was the Korean War. Though news of it was no longer regularly on the front pages as it had been when major battles were raging in 1950 and 1951,. . . .” (p. 43, italics added; contrast this with the media’s present obsession with every item of “bad” news out of Iraq, though the level of American involvement and casualty levels today are very much below that in Korea in 1952; the relationship of the media to the government has dramatically changed in the intervening 50 years, from one chiefly of news-gathering to one of adversarialism or advocacy, depending on whether the national administration is conservative or leftist, respectively--Editor)
“Driving back on the hot June day past some government buildings, the justice [Robert H. Jackson] commented that he thought one of the great harms wrought by central air conditioning was that it had enabled the government in Washington to function during the summer, rather than closing up shop and leaving people alone the way it had formerly done. As we talked about this effect, I realized that his comment was only half in jest.” (p. 85)
“When Truman first succeeded Roosevelt in 1945, Roosevelt loyalists were wont to say that the mistakes of the new administration would never have happened if Roosevelt were alive. Now  political wags said that the Korean Was would never have happened if Truman were alive; others coined the phrase ‘To err is Truman.’ “ (p. 97)
“The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.” (p. 112; he could have added “or when the Supreme Court shall please to alter it.”--Editor)
In the Dred Scott decision of 1857, “All justices agreed that a slave was not a ‘citizen’ entitled to sue in the federal courts on the grounds of diversity of citizenship.” (p 140; this same principle applies to the question of whether enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo or elsewhere have a right today to sue in federal court. Clear precedent, and good sense, say emphatically “no!”--Editor)
Reacting to the Dred Scott case’s de facto extension of the right of slave-holding to all U.S. States, critics commented, “Are we to accept, without question, these new readings of the Constitution--to sit down contentedly under this disgrace--to admit that the Constitution was never before rightly understood, even by those who framed it--to consent that hereafter it shall be the slaveholders’ instead of the free men’s Constitution?” (p. 143; this criticism exactly applies to the Supreme Court’s “discovery” of a “right to privacy” in Roe v. Wade that guarantees the indiscriminate right of a women to kill her unborn child, or the recent decision that “found” a Constitutional right to sodomy, overturning all State prohibitions of the same)
“But a sense that a law is unfair, however deeply felt, ought not to be itself a ground for [the Supreme Court] declaring an act of Congress void.” (p. 145)
“Justices of the Supreme Court have a great deal of authority, but it is not an authority to weave into the Constitution their own ideas of what is good and what is bad.” (p. 314; and yet this is what in fact a majority on the Court has done as a matter of course for the past 40 years, thereby seriously subverting the rule of law--Editor)
“It has always seemed to me that this presumption of constitutionality makes eminent good sense. If the Supreme Court wrongly decides that a law enacted by Congress is constitutional, it has made a mistake, but the result of its mistake is only to leave the nation with a law duly enacted by the popularly chosen members of the House of Representatives and the Senate and signed into law by the popularly chosen president. But if the Supreme Court wrongly decides that a law enacted by Congress is not constitutional, it has made a mistake of considerably greater consequence; it has struck down a law duly enacted by the popularly elected branches of government not because of any principle in the Constitution, but because of the individual views of desirable policy held by a majority of the nine justices at that time.” (p. 318)