The first question gives rise to endless questions that we do not know the answer to. Does he believe that we should attempt to interpret ambiguous words and phrases that appear in the constitution, or does he think we should ignore them. Does he believe that historical evidence should be used to discern what the Founders thought the words in the constitution mean, or is the relevant inquiry what the general pubic meaning of the words were at the time. At what level of ambiguity does historical evidence become relevant?
There are many more questions I can think of regarding his personal views on interpreting the constitution that have nothing to do with his personal views on politics.
Those are good questions. My point was more directed at the "issues" people who seem more interested in getting a conservative activist judge.