<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>You Want It, You Got It: My Advice for Judges (For What it's Worth)</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/31/you-want-it-you-got-it-my-advice-for-judges-for-what-it-s-worth.aspx</link><description>Eric remains insistent . He wants to know what I would tell judges about how to decide cases consistent with my views of the living constitution. As described earlier, I think that living constitutionalism is a theory about the legitimacy of the constitutional</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator></channel></rss>