|
|
|
|
|
|
by adriand
726 days ago
|
|
|
> The actual ruling was NOT an "textualist" interpretation at all. That’s precisely my point. They are textualists when it’s convenient. When the textualist outcome would be unsatisfactory from an ideological perspective, then they aren’t textualists any more. |
|
|
Another is that they're "originalists" in their interpretation. How do their decisions hold up if you apply that perspective?