When asked to comment on Scalia’s jurisprudence, Richard Posner recently said “I don’ think he or anyone can derive results in difficult, emotionally charged cases from the constitutional text.”
When former future President Rick Perry turned his attention to the court, he wrote that it “adheres to the Constitution in appearance only and as a matter of necessity, finding in it or in previous case law the single nugget around which the court can marginally justify its policy choice to keep up the pretense of actually caring one iota about the Constitution in the first place.”
Add these to the pile of support for Segal and Spaeth’s attitudinal model which posits justices simply vote their unconstrained policy preferences.
But has skepticism about law on the Court gone too far? Are justices really unconstrained?