> bash Scalia

Actually I don't Milo. Although I may have, heh, reservations about the man and his politics, of course being a perfick gennulman I would have to refrain from casting any aspersions in these hallowed grounds ;)

No, my question was cast quite carefully because although I personally would reject his almost fundamentalist assertion that language must be fixed and unchanging, it seemed to me that he does raise a point of some interest: how long is to have elapsed before it is reasonable or necessary to review meanings of important texts in the light of current connotative understandings?

This has a much wider application than mere politics (he said, carefully avoiding mention of the bible) <<EG>>
But seriously, I meant the question in good faith as a debating point about how we use language over time.