The word “weaponize” is in vogue nowadays amid strident controversy over the Second Amendment to the Constitution authorizing the citizenry to bear arms. Among other contexts, it even has been used to characterize the nine “top guns” of the Supreme Court judiciary. The founders‘ fear of autocratic rule prompted them to design a government with three branches, two popularly elected periodically and the third nominated by the President and vetted for approval by clear majorities of both Congressional chambers. The White House and Congress are subject to relatively frequent turnover, and they feared the risk of societal disruption by dramatic regime change. Their concept was that jurisprudence should be ongoing and consistent in the face of political winds. The Court’s role is to select and adjudicate controversial issues that Congress cannot resolve legislatively or that fall outside the President’s executive purview. One might criticize the use of lifetime appointments to achieve that objective, but it has had the desired effect for 247 years - by relying on nine demonstrated backgrounds in legal scholarship, theory and precedent to steady the winds of political turnover in a constitutional democracy - a benign use of weaponry. Phil Osifer