You mean "admits," not "claims"
Which returns us to the question - as yet unanswered - of whether you contend that 1) you are arguing for something that *is* a method in the way that originalism claims to be, or that 2) a method is impossible - i.e., that constitutional decisionmaking is inevitably malleable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I would submit that this is not a practically usable answer to the question "how, then, *should* judges decide constitutional questions?" If an answer is incapable of being framed in positive terms, it is incapable of being applied in cases or controversies.
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.