In an essay for a symposium at The American Mind, James Wilson Institute Affiliated Attorney and Fellowship Faculty member Gunnar Gundersen argues, in agreement with Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermeule, that originalism has failed and is merely a mask for liberalism. According to Gundersen, a jurisprudence that truly captured the furnishings of mind of the Founding Generation would recognize a need to pursue the common good, rather than an Originalism predicated on moral neutrality. Instead, much of the Originalism presently offered undermines the Founders' conceptions of free speech and the free exercise of religion. In Gundersen's view, Originalism cannot exist as the morally neutral island it was designed as - it inevitably requires an appeal to higher principles to justify itself.

Some quotes from the article:

"Conservatives are in danger of losing out on decades of hard work to educate and win over the population to an objective, fixed meaning of the Constitution. We are close to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."

"[I]n the cases of greatest consequence, originalism means liberalism. Or to put it differently, originalism has failed to maintain the original meaning of key constitutional texts."

"Ultimately, originalism cannot justify itself. Any endorsement of originalism as an interpretive tool must appeal to some antecedent principles about the nature or law and what makes a good legal system. Hence, the best defense of originalism cannot be made by legal minds squeamish about wrestling with moral reasoning."

"The alleged advantage of originalism was providing a morally neutral and objective interpretive means that would produce predictable results based on a fixed meaning of constitutional text. It is obvious that it is not serving this purpose."

You can read the full article here.