It would take until 1980 for “originalism” and “originalist” to be applied to judicial philosophy, first appearing in a disapproving article in the Boston University Law Review by Paul Brest, former dean of Stanford Law School. “The Misconceived Quest for Original Understanding” critiqued a school of thought then associated with Robert Bork—later rejected by the Senate as a Supreme Court nominee—and Edwin Meese. In 1985, Meese, then Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, defended his interpretive stance on the Constitution in an address to the American Bar Association, “Toward a Jurisprudence of Original Intention”—though the terms “originalism” and “originalist” did not appear.