[Justin Taylor:] After admitting that “originalism” is not perfect and that there are some difficult issues, he also says:

The originalist has easy answers for many things, especially the most controversial things in modern times. [Does] the equal protection clause require that states permit same sex marriage? That is not a hard question for an originalist. Nobody ever thought that is what the equal protection clause meant… .[Is there] a right to abortion? For Pete’s sake, it was criminal in every state for 200 years… . So I have easy answers to a lot of stuff. Whereas, for the “living constitutionalist,” there are no answers.

~ Antonin Scalia

Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution — try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial.

~ Clarence Thomas