“And if you can find clarity in the text that’s pretty much the end of the ballgame,” she continued. “Often texts are not clear, you have to look [farther].”
And the last sentence is very telling in that liberals will often reach their opinion by “looking farther” - IOW, loose interpretation of the laws to suit a political agenda.
So how does she explain her vote for homosexual marriage? The text of the laws on marriage was clear. Marriage had a definition, a clear definition. Yet she and her liberal cohorts decided we have to go beyond what marriage laws said, and decided that we should change the definition of marriage.
So how can she claim that textualist theory drives decision making, when at least in that case, the driving force was the desire to impose homosexual marriage, regardless of what the law said????