JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE THOMAS, AND FIDELITY TO ORIGINAL MEANING

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have helped to elevate originalism from the fringes of academic debate to the center of the resolution of constitutional controversies before the United States Supreme Court. Originalism deserves re- examination in light of their judicial practice. This article analyzes the jurisprudence of Justices Scalia and Thomas to advance three conclusions about originalism. First, the competing methodologies adopted by Justices Scalia and Thomas expose the unresolved fault lines within originalism. Second, Justices Scalia and Thomas deviate from their own interpretive principles, demonstrating that originalism, in practice, has failed to deliver on the promise of a consistent methodology that limits judicial di􏰐c􏰎e􏰋i􏰌􏰑. Thi􏰎d, 􏰋he deficie􏰑cie􏰐 i􏰑 J􏰍􏰐􏰋ice Sca􏰊ia􏰏􏰐 a􏰑d Th􏰌􏰒a􏰐􏰏􏰐 􏰓􏰍􏰎i􏰐􏰔􏰎􏰍de􏰑ce expose the inherent weaknesses of originalism, as fidelity to original meaning cannot be easily reconciled with other values defended by originalists such as certainty, stability and judicial constraint.