I know what I am talking about; you don't. You made up out of nothing what TN said. Either you are a dolt or malignant.TN said nothing of the sort, OK; that was your silly interpretation of what he said.
If you want to address what I actually said, feel free. But read up on the whole exchange so you know what your talking about.
This is exactly what he said.
They "interpreted".. the Rehnquist court and the marshall court era have interpreted them differently. Words meanings also change over time. Like "commerce"
Line item veto? They ruled it unconstitutional.. We have this thing called Article 1, Section 7, clauses 2 & 3 of the COTUS.
He implied that he was totally comfortable with judges interpreting thing differently than preceding courts have and he is also comfortable with applying different definitions to words in law and the Constitution other than the definitions that applied at the time the law or document was written. Then he gave constitutional references that had nothing to do with courts granting themselves the power to delete sections of laws while leaving the rest in force when they denied that same authority to the president. Wouldn't the same logic they used to deny the president a line item veto, apply to them?