Editing Hugo Black (section)

===Flexibility with textualism and originalism===
One of Black's biographers commented:

<blockquote>Black's support of ''[[Bolling v. Sharpe|Bolling]]'' seemingly violated his own principles: the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] does not contain, nor can it be read to incorporate, the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]'s [[equal protection clause]]. When a clerk later asked how Black could justify this, he replied: 'A wise judge chooses, among plausible constitutional philosophies, one that will generally allow him to reach results he can believe in—a judge who does not to some extent tailor his judicial philosophy to his beliefs inevitably becomes badly frustrated and angry.{{nbsp}}... A judge who does not decide some cases, from time to time, differently from the way he would wish, because the philosophy he has adopted requires it, is not a judge. But a judge who refuses ever to stray from his judicial philosophy, and be subject to criticism for doing so, no matter how important the issue involved, is a fool.'<ref name=Calabresi>[[Guido Calabresi]], "Forward: Antidiscrimination and Constitutional Accountability (What the Bork-Brennan Debate Ignores)", 105 ''Harvard Law Review''. 80, 132 [1991]).</ref><ref name=Newman>Roger K. Newman, ''Hugo Black'', p. 435</ref></blockquote>

Black also joined Douglas's dissent in ''[[Breithaupt v. Abram]]'' which argued that substantive due process prevented police from making an involuntary intrusion into a person's body, in this case a blood sample taken while the suspect was unconscious.<ref>{{cite web |title=Breithaupt v. Abram |url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/352/432.html |website=Findlaw |access-date=October 12, 2022}}</ref>