there were a lot of us couldn't tell you about shelton kelly but i will let that go. i think what justice ginsburg said remains one of the most powerful examples of modern legal writing i know of. is a great set of debates. i do not know how you guys would answer by original intuition. new originalism, but you guys can keep that to yourselves. what do i know? i am just an historian. thank you very much. [applause] >> we will take three questions. greg's i wanted to offer you an olive branch. an>> i want to offer you olive branch. i do not think you can trump his in --al -- [indiscernible] it does seem to me you do not compete in that sense and to have your second point in expertise to offer a theory of interpretation. right to go after justice scalia pauses store: todence but it is possible care about historical facts in a much narrower sense. you care about it in the sense -- a big thing. you could be like larry or others and care about a very narrow historical fact. namely, what was the intention? you do not mean what did they mean to achieve but you mean what did t

there were a lot of us couldn't tell you about shelton kelly but i will let that go. i think what justice ginsburg said remains one of the most powerful examples of modern legal writing i know of. it is a great set of debates. i do not know how you guys would answer by original intuition. the new originalism, but you guys can keep that to yourselves. what do i know? i am just an historian. thank you very much. >> i think we have time for questions. i would like to offer you an olive branch. [inaudible] it seems to me that it also means that you do not compete in that sense. but you have the expertise to the theory of interpretation defends its use. you are right to go after justice scalia on that grounds, but it is possible to care about facts in a more narrow sense than the average historian. you could be like larry, or others, and care about mary -- very narrow historical facts. namely, what was the intention? you don't mean what do they mean to achieve, but what did they mean? to what did they intend to refer with the language? it's not as if that is a disagreement