and contextual differences between legislating, on the one hand, and common law decisionmak-ing, on the other.”). 39 . See Ortiz, 93 S.W.3d at 91. 40 . See Peugh, 133 S.Ct. at 2079. 41 . See Garner, 529 U.S. at 247, 120 S.Ct. 1362. 42 . Phillips, 362 S.W.3d at 616. 43 . Id. at 617-18. 44 . Cf. post, op. at 180-81 (Alcala, J., dissenting). 45 .See Phillips, 362 S.W.3d at 616-17. 46 . Marin, 851 S.W.2d at 279. See also Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736, 739 (Tex.Crim.App.2014) ("In Marin, we held that the general preservation requirement’s application turns' on the nature of the right allegedly infringed.”). 47 . Proctor, 967 S.W.2d at 843. See also Phillips, 362 S.W.3d at 626 (Keller, P.J., dissenting). 48 . See, e.g., Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 179-80 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). See also Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276,
holding confrontation clause inapplicable at sentencing holding that a proffer of evidence to established a witnesss bias and motive to lie did not preserve a confrontation clause argument because a defendant must specifically articulate that the confrontation clause demands admission of proffered evidence to preserve error on this ground holding that hearsay objection does not preserve a confrontation clause challenge holding that a defendant forfeited his confrontation clause claim by failing to properly preserve it at trial holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue