Thanks to Public Policy Matters for flagging a decision issued yesterday by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which included a reminder that the Supreme Court “is final but not infallible.”

The opinion overturned its own prior decision regarding sentencing in a criminal case, citing a new Supreme Court opinion. But two of the three judges on the panel issued a written opinion concurring with the decision but including a biting criticism of the high court.

The Supreme Court has now decided that the phrase “any other provision of law” has a meaning exactly opposite to the ordinary meaning of the words. This mode of interpretation was sometimes followed in the early days of the Common Law in the time of Edward I and II in the 13th and 14th Centuries when the judges would sometimes correct the legislative language and reverse the meaning of a statute under a doctrine of interpretation called “The Equity of the Statute.” Looking back some four centuries later, Blackstone said the early judges would sometimes change the statute when “the law (by reason of its universality) is deficient” and needed correction or the judges had participated in making the statute and knew what it was supposed to mean.

The 6th Circuit includes judicial districts in Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, and Michigan.

Also appearing yesterday, a column in the Washington Post blasting Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for accepting an invitation to lecture at a meeting of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus next month.

Ruth Marcus, writing in the Post:

This is a terrible idea. Justices frequently address groups with ideological viewpoints — the conservative Federalist Society, the liberal American Constitution Society. I have no particular problem with such appearances, although it would be wise for justices not to limit themselves to organizations on a single side of the spectrum.

But there is a difference between ideological and partisan. Justices don’t belong at partisan gatherings, period. One illustration of why is the uncomfortable fact that Bachmann has filed a friend of the court brief arguing that the health-care law is unconstitutional.

That issue is headed, inevitably, for the high court, where, I suspect, Scalia will share Bachmann’s assessment. The justice’s Tea Party excursion fuels unfortunate suspicions that his vote, if it turns out that way, will be driven by partisanship. Because the truth, I think, would be less sinister: his understanding of the Constitution is flawed.

Meanwhile, Tom Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archives, testified yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, referring to the initial harsh reactions to recent Wikileaks dislcosures as “Wikimania”. The ACLU submitted testimony to the same hearing. The hearing was broadcast on CNN and is available for viewing online.