Words get new meaning at Supreme Court

When people are elevated to the Supreme Court, it often causes them, and consequently all courts, to use words in new, imaginative ways. For example, a member of the Supreme Court, rather than being called a "judge," is called a "justice," regardless of whether his or her rulings are just. The judicial principle that words do not mean what they say, especially when the words conflict with the desires of government officials to exercise power, is illustrated by many cases. See, for example, cases on the Sixth Amendment provision that the accused is entitled to trial by an impartial jury "in all criminal prosecutions." In Lewis v United States (1996) the Supreme Court said that a person could be prosecuted for misdemeanors carrying 6 months in prison, without a jury trial. They also said that a person could be charged with multiple misdemeanors, tried for all without a jury, and sentenced to decades for multiple consecutive 6 month terms. So, by reading the rulings of the Supreme Court, you learn that "all criminal prosecutions" really means "some criminal prosecutions", and you have no right to a jury to protect you from the government if you are charged with a "petty" offense. It is true that in England before the American Revolution, there was no right to jury trial for "petty" offenses. Perhaps the justices simply forgot who won the Revolution. Perhaps they forgot that the Bill of Rights was designed to change the British way of governing, not to perpetuate it. The Revolutionaries who granted sweeping rights to the American people did so in reaction to the practices of the entrenched judicial establishment of the time. Today's entrenched judicial establishment can void those rights, and regain the power their fellow judges lost in 1787, simply by declaring that words mean something other than what they say. If the authors of the Bill of Rights really did want to limit the right of jury trial to those criminal prosecutions carrying a penalty greater than 6 months, don't you think they would have said so? Courts don't. Words just do not mean the same thing in a courtroom as they do in ordinary speech. So what can they say in response? That if the founding fathers had meant "all," they would have said so? They did say so. Are there other examples? The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution states: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." The Supreme Court ruled that "Citizens of another State" means not only citizens of another state, but citizens of the same state. See Welch v. Texas Highways & Public Transportation Department, 483 U.S. 468 (1987). The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Yet, every day judges throw people into prison for peaceably keeping and bearing arms, with the full approval of the Supreme Court. Therefore, can it really be so surprising that the Supreme Court in United States v. Watts would rule that a jury verdict of "not guilty" does not prevent a judge from saying you really are guilty, and sentencing you accordingly?