and i said it's like trying to interpret an inkblot. you read a sentence, and you come to an inkblot, you have no idea what's under there, so you begin to interpret it. and that, when i referred to the ninth amendment as an inkblot, that enraged people. it would have been the better part of valor not to have said that. but i did. >> host: have you done that often? >> guest: yes. [laughter] >> host: but, so if a judge comes across something either in the constitution or in a statute that is, he cannot figure out what it means, he should ignore it? >> guest: he should say he doesn't know what it means, that he has no guidance in deciding the case. and judges shouldn't just -- i've had, i've been in cases in which the other judge or two said that they didn't know what the language meant. the alien torts claims act being a prime example. but they were sure that congress intended that we interpret it. now, so they would go ahead, and they'd make it up. now, the fact that congress wrote something they thought we would interpret, they also tho