what were they arguing about? >> well, my understanding is they were arguing or at least presenting two different viewpoints as to how the constitution should be interpreted. and i would say just as an aside before talking about their positions, that while i have been on the bench for nine plus years, the issue of constitutional interpretation in that sense doesn't come up very often. it comes up to the supreme court for sure. but it doesn't come up very often in the lower courts. what justice scalia and justice breyer, i believe, were debating was the justice scalia's notion of originalism, meaning the words of the constitution should be interpreted as they were written by the founders in the founding era and that they