THANKTHANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, SENATOR. I MUST ADMIT THAT I DON'T REALLY HAVE A JUSTICE THAT I'VE MOLDED MYSELF AFTER OR THAT I WOULD. WHAT I HAVE IS A RECORD. I HAVE 570-PLUS CASES IN WHICH I HAVE EMPLOYED THE METHODOLOGY THAT I DESCRIBED AND THAT SHOWS PEOPLE HOW I ANALYZE CASES. I, IN EVERY CASE, AM PROCEEDING NEUTRALLY, FROM A NEUTRAL POSTURE, IN EVERY CASE. I DESCRIBE THOROUGHLY ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE MADE IN THE CASE TO ME AS A JUDGE. BECAUSE I WANT IN MY LENGTHY OPINIONS FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE INPUTS. THIS, I SAY, IS WHAT I'M CONSIDERING BECAUSE I LAY OUT IN VERY, YOU KNOW, DETAILED WAY EVERYTHING THAT PEOPLE HAVE ARGUED IN ALL OF THE CASES AND THEN WHEN I'M DOING MY INTERPRETATION, YMER FOCUSED ON THE TEXT -- I'M FOCUSED ON THE TEXT OF ANY STATUTE OR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. I AM LOOKING AS APPROPRIATE TO THE INTENTIONS OF THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE WORDS BECAUSE I VIEW STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION, THOSE EXERCISES CONSISTENT WITH MY LIMITED AUTHORITY. I AM CONSCIOUS OF NOT INTERPRETING THOSE TEXTS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I BELIEVE THE POLICY SHOULD BE OR WHAT I THINK THE OUTCOME SHOULD BE. I'M TRYING IN EVERY CASE THAT INVOLVES THAT KIND OF INTERPRETATION TO ASSESS WHAT IT IS THAT THE PARTIES WHO WROTE THE TEXT INTENDED. AND AS A RESULT, BECAUSE MY METHODOLOGY INVOLVES THESE VARIOUS PIECES AND BECAUSE OF THE WAY IN WHICH I DO THINGS, I'M RELUCTANT TO ESTABLISH OR TO ADOPT A PARTICULAR LABEL BECAUSE THE IDEA OF HOW YOU INTERPRET IS JUST ONE PART OF THE ENTIRETY OF A JUDGE'S RESPONSIBILITY. AS I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT THE FACTS IN THE CASE AND MY EXPERIENCE AS A TRIAL JUDGE HELPS ME TO ASSESS THE FACTS FROM ALL OF THE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF THE PARTIES, BECAUSE I'M ABLE TO DO THAT, I THINK, HAVING HEARD FROM PARTIES IN ALL SORTS OF CASES DIRECTLY AS THEY PRESENT THEIR ARGUMENTS. THAT'S A PART OF THE JUDGING RESPONSIBILITY THAT ISN'T REALLY CAPTURED BY SOMETHING LIKE ORIGINALISM AND LIVING CONSTITUTION. AND I BELIEVE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS FIXED IN ITS MEANING, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL INTENT, ORIGINAL PUBLIC MEANING OF THE WORDS WHEN ONE IS TRYING TO ASSESS, BECAUSE, AGAIN, THAT'S A LIMITATION ON MY AUTHORITY TO IPORT MY OWN -- IMPORT MY OWN POLICY VIEWS. BUT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THE MEANING, UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, DUE PROCESS, LOOKING AT THOSE WORDS ARE NOT ENOUGH TO TELL YOU WHAT THEY ACTUALLY MEAN. YOU LOOK AT THEM IN THE CONTEXT OF HISTORY, YOU LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION, YOU LOOK AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH IN COMPARISON TO WHAT THOSE WORDS MEANT AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE ADOPTED. AND YOU LOOK AT PRECEDENT AS IT ARE RELATED TO THIS -- PRECEDENTS THAT ARE RELATED TO THIS TOPIC. ALL OF THOSE TOOLS JUDGES USE AND I HAVE USED, IF YOU LOOK AT MY CASES. 