[gruez]

>There are a number of people who are "originalists" on the court. People who believe that they have a special understanding of the founders. A belief that they, at a minimum, channel the ideals through some kind of unknowable means.

>How many people on the bench hold this set of religious beliefs?

This seems to be a very uncharitable take on what originalism means. You're basically saying the people believe in the paranormal and derive their rulings based on a séance. The first sentence on wikipedia provides a far less biased view.

>originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

[iaw]

> This seems to be a very uncharitable take on what originalism means. You're basically saying the people believe in the paranormal and derive their rulings based on a séance. The first sentence on wikipedia provides a far less biased view.

That much more charitable understanding gets thrown out the window when originalists are confronted with things that override their dogma and stretch them to come up with new legal interpretations to suit their desired moral outcome.

[bcrosby95]

Just because they set aside originalism when an outcome seems to offend their personal views more than they like, doesn't mean they think they have some special spiritual link to the founders.