The views of the constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe are often described by conservative critics such as Robert Bork as being characteristic of the Living Constitution paradigm. Bork labeled Tribe's approach as "protean" since it was whatever Tribe needed it to be to reach a desired policy outcome. Tribe rejected both the term and the description. Such a construction appears to define the doctrine as being an ends dictate the means anti-law philosophy. Some liberal constitutional scholars have since implied a similar charge of intellectual dishonesty regarding originalists by noting that they virtually never reach outcomes with which they disagree. (Many academic political scientists believe that justices and appeals judges are willing to alter their outcomes to attain philosophical majorities on certain questions.)