U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recently took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal with an article adapted from his new book, So Ordered: An Originalist's View of the Constitution, the Court and Our Country. In the piece, Alito dubbed himself a "practical originalist" and a "working judicial originalist." But as he proceeded to actually detail his legal views, they sounded much more like the results-oriented "living constitutionalism" that originalists are supposed to oppose.
Consider what Alito had to say about the landmark gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago (2010). At issue were two closely intertwined questions. First, does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply against state and local governments, just like it applies against the federal government? And second, if the Court did find that the amendment applies against the states, what is the proper constitutional means for applying it?
