- The text discusses different approaches to interpreting statutes and the Constitution, focusing on textualism/originalism versus purpose-based interpretation.

- It uses numerous Supreme Court cases as examples to illustrate how these different methodologies have been applied in practice and their consequences.

- Cases like Lochner, the New Deal shift, and Brown v. Board of Education are analyzed as examples of paradigm shifts in the Court's jurisprudential approach over time.

- Textualism promises clear answers but often fails in reality due to ambiguity and the complexity of legal texts. Originalism lacks guidance on when to overturn precedent.

- Purpose-based interpretation considers statutory objectives, legislative history, values, and consequences to understand ambiguous provisions in context.

- Landmark cases like Heller, Citizens United, and Dobbs are critiqued for relying too heavily on textualism/originalism rather than balancing interests.

- Workability, maintenance of democratic governance, and reliance interests favor continuity of law over frequent overruling of long-held precedent.

- No single approach alone provides answers; a blend of tools applied judiciously yields most enduring and practical interpretations. Textualism risks undermining rule of law.

In summary, the text argues purpose-based interpretation provides a more workable and restrained methodology than rigid adherence to textualism or originalism alone when grappling with complex legal texts.