I can't tell you how angry I was when I read this news yesterday in the NYT. I started to type shocked, but I'm not shocked. This is a judge who picks and chooses between originalism, textualism, and a brand new sort of historicalism, depending on what he wants a particular outcome to be in conservative terms.

How do you write one opinion relying on originalism in another opinion relying on textualism?

He is a complete political animal. He has an agenda, an agenda formed and partly paid for by conservative political operatives.

They knew what he was when they worked to get him on the court, and he's delivering, as a political operator.

Not by any means like a judge.

He's so bold he doesn't even care if people see it. He knows nobody can touch him.

I hope he's wrong.