Inviting judges to consider the consequences of their decisions or recent practice as guides to interpretation threatens to bury originalism.
Yesterday, I completed my series of posts on departmentalism and judicial supremacy. My main point is that the issue turns largely on the history and that, while more research is needed, one real possibility is that the correct rule is a moderate judicial supremacy.
Here are the original five posts:
And here is one more responding to Michael Paulsen: