These mistakes originalist justices are making aren’t about disputed interpretations of history, with evidence on both sides. They’re pulling quotes out of context to attribute ideas to founding figures that those figures adamantly opposed. (via @andycraig.bsky.social)
reason.com/volokh/2024/...
Scalia's concurrence in Conroy v. Aniskoff decried use of legislative history in statutory analysis because it essentially turns lawyers into untrained historians and bills clients for the privilege of their amateurism.
Somehow that's perfectly fine for constitutional analysis though.