Wow, trying to have a civil discussion, and you go full on dickhead. I won't address all of your semi-coherent ramblings, but I will say that if you think Republicans don't break from textualism to pervert whatever they believe internally to be what they interpret the constitution to say, you need to read some cases. Start with Chadha and Hamdi. Maybe roll into WWV and Burger King. If you want a doozy, try to reconcile Smith and AW. These are contradictory and confusing opinions, with conservatives and liberals on both sides at times, and have both textual and contextual elements. It isn't always cut and dry.

​

If you don't care what a Justice's views on government are, you'll never understand his opinions to their fullest. That's even more true with Scalia. They pick and choose which phrases mean what and arbitrarily give weight to each phrase and make it say what they want it to. And like i said about Scalia, his views have really changed from the start to the end of life career as a Justice. That shows that the constitution, even to textualists, means different things at different times.