I believe the conservative judges use the following process flow:
1. Is the prior precedent what I want? If no, go to 2.
2. Is the prior precedent consistent with "textualism", i.e. can we find enough period writings which use the words in the constutition a certain way? If no, go to 3.
3. Is the prior precedent consistent with "originalism", i.e. can we find enough period writings which suggest some people peripherally or directly involved with the drafting of the constitution (or state constutitions) thought of an issue in the same way we want to rule? If no, go to 4.
4. Rule that way anyways, and just do your best to justify it with whatever you dug up for 2 and 3.
1. Is the prior precedent what I want? If no, go to 2.
2. Is the prior precedent consistent with "textualism", i.e. can we find enough period writings which use the words in the constutition a certain way? If no, go to 3.
3. Is the prior precedent consistent with "originalism", i.e. can we find enough period writings which suggest some people peripherally or directly involved with the drafting of the constitution (or state constutitions) thought of an issue in the same way we want to rule? If no, go to 4.
4. Rule that way anyways, and just do your best to justify it with whatever you dug up for 2 and 3.