|
02-14-2016 10:14 AM
#1
| |
|
| |
|
02-14-2016 02:22 PM
#2
| |
He was consistent. There was the odd case here and there, but he was largely consistent with his view on interpretation. He believed the constitution was a dead document, to be viewed as it would have been at the time it was written. This sometimes lead to results that both the left and right would disagree with, but it also came with a bunch of persuasive heft. | |