I like Scalia’s argument because it is logical, and a reasonably objective approach.
I do not see an alternative other than some nebulous “wise Solomon” approach, where any outcome could be obtained. I also note that opponents to textualism/originalism do not offer a competing theory, but only criticism.
The “living constitution” proponents, to continue with the rule book analogy; might have a football referee decide to award 4 points for an extraordinary effort. The player made it to the goal line, and was only unsuccessful due to more or larger and stronger players stopping him. Half the watchers were disheartened, and thought there should be some credit given. The opposition admits the effort was extraordinary.
The rules were understood. The rule makers are free to change them for the next game or season, but they were the rules in effect at the time.
Bookmarks