Many have observed the selectiveness of the Supreme
Court’s reliance on originalism. In broad swathes of cases, originalist
justices make little or no effort to base their decisions on original meaning,
relying instead on precedents. Accordingly, critics have charged them with
inconsistency, intellectual dishonesty, and hypocrisy. Why have originalists
not responded by developing and articulating reconciliations of their
originalism with their selective subordination of it to precedent-based
frameworks for decision? What should originalists and critics learn from carefully
examining selective originalism? When interpreters confront a choice between
originalist and precedent-based grounds, what norms should govern their
decision?