Judicial originalism as myth - Eric J. Segall - Vox

The vaunted  Scalian battle cry of "original public meaning" would leave us hemmed in not only by the slaveholders of the 1787 federal convention, but even by the prejudices of the post civil war Republicans who did not object to segregated public schools as in Washington. - gwc

Judicial originalism as myth - Vox

by Eric J. Segall (Georgia State School of Law)

“It is simply anti-democratic to conceal something as fundamental as the nature of constitutional decision-making — especially if concealment is motivated by the fear that the citizenry wouldn't stand for the practice if it knew the truth. If the Court can't admit what it is doing, then it shouldn't do it.” —Paul Brest, 1981

The doctrine of originalism, whereby judges purport to identify and then rely on the original meaning of the United States Constitution to resolve constitutional cases, is more ingrained in our national consciousness today than at any other time in our history. Six years ago, one of our most liberal justices, Elena Kagan, stated during her confirmation hearing that “we are all originalists.” Prominent professors are proudly proclaiming in our most elite law reviews that “Originalism is our Law.”