As a trained historian, who was a professional historian before law school, Scalia& #39;s "history" reads like an undergraduate history research paper. Originalism, done right, should be done with interdisciplinary research/analysis. But nooo. Because "anyone" can do history.

ALSO, lawyers, judges, and professors using pre-1990& #39;s history articles. OK: in the 1980& #39;s & 90& #39;s, the historiography began to change. It incorporated race and gender into the analyses. I would be, and rightfully so, publicly shamed for using the OUTDATED sources you folks do.

Also, historians LOVE talking about how historical scholarship has developed. It& #39;s called https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🌈" title="Regenbogen" aria-label="Emoji: Regenbogen"> historiography. Any topic you& #39;re writing about has a historiography essay. Read them. They are there to help guide you AWAY from historical interpretation traps.