Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
OP: How can originalism be defended? It cannot be correct just because it constrains judges since *anything* could be picked as a document or principle of constraint. It cannot be the case that a defender of originalism on constrain grounds would commit themselves to, say, a constraining doctrine that a judge must rule in favor of whichever party has paid them the most money, for example. That would constrain, but is so clearly wrong under a principle lying outside the constraining document that we must abandon it.
OP: So what other reasons exist to defend that method of constitutional interpretation?