Originalism:

Definition: Originalism is a family of theories of constitutional interpretation.
Personal Bias: The speaker leans towards originalism but recognizes strong arguments against it.
Discussions will contrast originalism with opposing theories.
Distinction between types of constitutional interpretation:
- Originalism focuses on original meaning.
- Living constitutionalism represents a different approach.

Originalism is characterized by:
- Affirmation of Fixation Thesis: The meaning of constitutional text is fixed at the time of drafting or ratification.
- Constraint Principle: Constitutional practice must be consistent with the original meaning.
- Theory of Original Meaning: Understanding what a term meant originally, especially regarding freedoms and rights.
- Applicability: Originalism aims to make it reasonably possible to apply the constitution based on its original meaning.

Original Public Meaning
- Definition: The meaning is fixed based on how terms were understood by the general public or legal community at the time of ratification.
- Emphasis is on contemporary comprehension during adoption.
Original Intent
- Definition: The meaning is fixed by the intentions of the authors and ratifiers of the constitution.
- Less common than public meaning and involves potential discrepancies between author intent and public understanding.

Respect for Past Agreements:
- Originalism supports popular sovereignty, claiming that past agreements legitimize the constitution.
- A challenge is whether future generations are bound by agreements of previous ones.
- David Hume's perspective: Generations overlap, suggesting an intergenerational agreement is desirable for stability.
Judicial Restraint:
- Originalism limits judicial discretion, reducing the likelihood of judges imposing personal norms or opinions into constitutional interpretation.
- This separation maintains legal clarity and reduces the risk of legal disagreements stemming from normative disagreements.
- Quote by Justice Scalia highlights the pivotal role of lawyers in interpreting the law based on traditional understanding.

The nomination of Robert Bork sparked a contentious debate about the Supreme Court's interpretations, leading to an increase in the politicization of judicial appointments.

Impossibility of Originalism:
- It may be challenging to ground decisions purely in originalism, causing conflicts with modern interpretations.
- Potential for bad faith decisions: Justifying normative judgments under the guise of originalism can lead to public resentment.
Difficulties in Key Decisions:
- Example: The landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education which opposed racial segregation cannot be easily justified through originalism.
- Originalism may not align with the values upheld in such decisions, raising ethical concerns about its application.
Inconsistency in Application:
- Critics argue originalism is often not fully adhered to by judges, leading to concerns about its reliability as a judicial philosophy.
- Judges may prioritize pragmatic compromises over strict adherence to originalist principles.

Judicial Compromise:
- Judges need to consider collaborative decision-making on courts, especially when few originalists are present.
- Compromises may lead to a lack of full originalist rulings.
Stare Decisis:
- Definition: The doctrine of stare decisis (to let the decision stand) dictates that previous decisions should be upheld unless there is compelling reason to overturn them.
- Respect for established rulings can limit the scope of originalist interpretations.
- The burden of proof for overturning a precedent is higher than for issues not previously addressed.
Judicial Fallibility:
- Judges must recognize their own fallibility, which can affect their application of originalism.

Justice Thomas often exemplifies uncompromising originalism but frequently delivers concurring opinions, illustrating the complexities of maintaining strict originalism in a collaborative environment.
Accusations of inconsistency among judges often stem from misunderstandings or poorly researched critiques rather than genuine contradictions in their reasoning.