So let’s say I instruct my employees to conduct their every function as if their desks were lined with the butts of our clientele… I.e., “there is absolutely no task whatsoever, no break-room conversation, no nothing that takes place within these walls that we wouldn’t be willing, even eager, to have our clients witness”… What then would I do with an employee who was overheard saying, “eh, that sounds great but it’s unrealistic. I like MF Global’s model better. Besides, what clients don’t know won’t hurt em.”? Of course I’d have to commit the taxpayer to another $50k+ (assuming the two full years) as my ex-employee joins the ranks of the unemployed…

So what do we do with a Justice of “the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution” (the Supreme Court) who, when visiting Egypt last week says “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”? Who instead recommends looking to the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom or the European Convention on Human Rights (none of which I’ve read by the way)?

I know, I’m short-sighted, dogmatic, old fashioned, yada yada yada… But I’m thinking thetruth of the matter is, for a big-government advocate, be she a politician or, in Ms. Ginsberg’s case, a Supreme Court Justice, the Constitution (the document “limiting the powers of government“) is an inconvenient document indeed…