Over at the VC, my friend Randy Barnett thinks I was too hard on Scott Bullock in our Kelo exchange, suggesting I challenged Scott’s “intellectual integrity.” I don’t believe I made any such charge, and certainly did not intend that implication. Scott noted that “It has become fashionable among some scholars to ignore provisions of the Constitution because they are inconvenient, or hard to understand, or unpopular.” In response I thought it perfectly fair to observe that there are others who allow themselves to see their own preferences in ambiguous constitutional text. Many libertarians fall into this tempting trap — I am sure I have been guilty of it myself at times — just as do many folks of other ideological stripes. I think it is rather self-evident that people’s perceptions and opinions are always shaped, at least in part, by their ideological precommitments, particularly in tough cases. Indeed, in some instances it is difficult not to do. Pointing out instances where ideology and interpretation appear to meld is not an insult to one’s integrity, and in the context I certainly think it was a fair comment.