It is not proper, legally, to judge a law based on words of people who made it rather than on the actual words of the law.
It's actually unprecedented. Judges judge based on the wording of the law, nothing more and nothing less.
The words out of a mouth have no place in a supreme court hearing.
All due respect, this is not true. Judges often look to legislative history and statements made by legislators in determining constitutionality of statutes. This is generally done in cases where the plain language is ambiguous. It's fair to argue whether legislative history or other extrinsic statutory aids
should be used, as Justice Scalia argued. However it isn't true to claim that judges
only judge on the plain language.
