While not all instances of originalism are bullshit, I identify those instances which are, and go on to demonstrate that originalism is uniquely prone to bullshit as a result of institutional demands on those involved in constitutional disputes. When interpreters engage in historical analysis for purposes other than determining the correct original public meaning or original intentions, they veer into bullshit territory. An attorney who argues from selective historical research or citations designed to support his client’s case or a judge who relies on what she suspects may be incomplete party submissions but which are enough to reach the desired outcome are both engaging in bullshit originalism.
Source: Is Originalism Bullshit? by Michael L. Smith :: SSRN
Hat-tip to Lowering the Bar