Winter heatedly denies that he "believes that there must be 'something standing between the Constitution and our understanding of it ..... I have argued, in contrast, that . . 'the meaning of [the Court's] constitutional interpretation is as much a matter of... our interpretive commitments, as it is a matter of the understanding of the Justices.'"" g And here one begins to see the problem: What exactly does Winter think this "understanding" consists in? If it is a matter of interpretive commitments, objectified sedimentations, and the like, then is Winter's outrage really justified?

Philip Chase Bobbitt, Philip Chase Bobbitt - Refl…, loc. 366