The idea that a Supreme Court Justice either "interprets the law according to the Constitution" or they don't, has always been a mistake. Mainly because too many people wildly over-simplify what it actually means to do that.
Reality is far more complex and subtle than that.
The Constitution is a collection of mostly very general statements, not a list of narrow specifics, that anyone can read and say (especially after 1789) means exactly one thing and nothing else.
It is in the nature of the rule of law itself, for that matter, that people are at the mercy of the way words were written at the time that a law is passed, more than they are served by the INTENTIONS of the people who wrote them.
Some classic examples, are that according to a totally dry reading of the Constitution, which assumes (as some claim to want) that the Federal Government only be allowed to do specifically what is said that is can do, and not one thing more, there would have been no Louisiana Purchase, no interstate highway system, no exploration of Space, no international communications systems, and on and on. ALL of those things and vastly more, are the result of all sorts of people interpreting the Constitution entirely differently than a word-for-word reading permits.
