We were discussing a case* today that absolutely beggared the imagination. The case revolved around the interpretation of a contract--specifically, the meaning of certain terms. The court's decision was nothing short of astounding:

...
If words had absolute and constant referents, it might be possible to discover contractual intention in the words themselves and in the manner in which they were arranged. Words, however, do not have absolute and constant referents. ‘A word is a symbol of thought but has no arbitrary and fixed meaning like a symbol of algebra or chemistry, * * *.
...
A word has no meaning apart from these factors; much less does it have an objective meaning, one true meaning.’
...

[The word in question was "all."]

(Footnotes elided)

Words have no true meaning? We can just imagine the Court's deliberations on this case. Picture this: a lava lamp, a big bowl of Nacho Cheese Doritos, and the burble of a water pipe. The Chief Justice looks to the source of the noise and asks "hey, man, what is truth, really? I mean, what if words didn't mean things? What if 'blue' really meant 'dump truck'? Wouldn't that be wild, man? Hey, don't bogart the pipe!"

Come to think of it, didn't Pres. Clinton use just about this same argument?

* Pacific Gas And Electric v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., 69 Cat, 2d 33, 69 Cat Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641 (Cal. 1968)