Why do Justice Scalia and Justice Stevens both devote such large portions of their opinions to analyzing early American statutes
and to reviewing the writings of the authors of the Constitution (the Framers)? Does an examination of his torical materials help the Court decide a case today?
America is a common law system, so you build cases and decisions by building the rationale for decisions on the arguments of Judges before you through the use of precedent.
So, Scalia and Stevens and others would want an argument to be based on the framers or previous decisions to show how established the idea is in American jurisprudence.
They should because they are the ones that pass the laws. They should have a more active role, and know more about what is happening around them so they can make better choices.
