Originalism is inherently an ideology of arrogance.

Every era of America, and especially the Founding era, was fractious. To hold original meaning over everything is to presume there *was* an original meaning and you know it better than the people who argued over it then.
An originalist says in their confirmation hearing that judges cannot place their values above the intent of the political branches, then says in their courtroom that they can speak with one voice for an entire generation of people 200 years ago who had their own disagreements.
An originalist scoffs at any judicial consideration of what is practical in 2020, even if it requires the very seizure of power from policymakers they claim is outside their responsibility.
In short, an originalist is nothing more than a self-righteous sophist who launders their own values through historical fiction and pretends that's a loftier kind of judging than considering the lives and rights of the people begging for justice to their face.
In my view, proper judicial restraint has nothing to do with jumping in the heads of ghosts. It's about defending civil rights when they are under threat, and defending the decisions of lawmakers and voters when they are not.

Originalists consistently fail to do either.
You can follow @fawfulfan.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: