YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TO ANSWER A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. WHILE MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE SEEM DEAD -- DEAD SET ON FINDING OUT IF YOU ARE AN ORIGINALIST, TEXTUAL LIST, IF YOU BELIEVE IN A LIVING CONSTITUTION OR VARIOUS OTHER LABELS, I DON'T FIND THESE LABELS PARTICULARLY USEFUL. TAKE ORIGINALISM. PROPONENTS CLAIM YOU JUST HAVE TO DIG DEEPLY ENOUGH INTO THE HISTORICAL RECORD AND YOU WILL SOMEHOW FIND THE ONE TRUE MEANING OF A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. THE FALLACY OF THIS APPROACH IS ILLUSTRATED IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VERSUS HILLER. THERE, JUSTICE SCALIA'S MAJORITY OPINION IN JUSTICE STEVENSON'S DISSENTING OPINION EACH APPLIED ORIGINALISM. JUSTICE STEVENS, MORE EFFECTIVELY, IN MY OPINION, AND REACH COMPLETELY DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. TAKE TEXTUALISM. JUDGE GORSUCH APPLIED TEXTUALISM TO FIND THAT TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT PROTECTED EMPLOYEES FROM DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY. IN DISSENT, JUSTICE ALITO MOCKED JUSTICE SCORCHES -- GORGEOUS APPLICATION AND WROTE THE FOLLOWING. "THE COURT ATTEMPTS TO PASS OFF ITS DECISION AS THE INEVITABLE PRODUCT OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION CHAMPIONED BY OUR LATE COLLEAGUE JUSTICE SCALIA. BUT NO ONE SHOULD BE FOOLED, THE COURTS OPINION IS LIKE A PIRATE SHIP. ITS SALES UNDER A TEXTUAL IS FLAGGED, WHAT WOULD IT ACTUALLY REPRESENTS IS A THEORY OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION THAT JUSTICE SCALIA EXCORIATED. THE THEORY THAT COURTS SHOULD UPDATE THOSE STATUTES SO THEY BETTER REFLECT THE CURRENT VALUES OF SOCIETY. AND THESE ARE TWO JUSTICES WHO ARE USUALLY IN AGREEMENT. SO MUCH FOR LABELS. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FIX A LABEL ON YOU, I'D RATHER FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT YOU ARE FAIR AND OBJECTIVE IN YOUR APPROACH. THAT YOU ARE EVENHANDED IN YOUR APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE FACTS, AND THE YOU ARE INDEPENDENT. DURING YOUR LAST CONFIRMATION HEARING YOU SPOKE ABOUT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE. ABOUT WHAT YOU LEARNED DURING THE THREE CLERKSHIPS IN YOUR THEN EIGHT YEARS ON THE BENCH. YOU SAID, AND I QUOTE, I KNOW VERY WELL WHAT MY OBLIGATIONS ARE, WHAT MY DUTIES ARE. NOT TO RULE WITH PARTISAN ADVANTAGE IN MIND. NOT TO TAILOR CRAFT MY DECISIONS IN ORDER TO GAIN, INFLUENCE, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT,". WELL SAID. MY QUESTION IS THE FOLLOWING. WHAT DO YOU DO TO ENSURE YOU MAINTAIN INDEPENDENCE FREE OF PARTISANSHIP WHEN YOU HANDLE A CASE?