Jack M. Balkin (Yale University - Law School) has posted We Are All Cafeteria Originalists Now (and We Always Have Been) (William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (forthcoming 2024)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Americans are “cafeteria originalists." They pick and choose when to follow the views of the founders, framers, or adopters (as they understand them) and often artfully re-characterize these views to support contemporary political and legal arguments. Even self-described originalist judges are originalist only when they want to be.
Cafeteria originalism is not a pathology or a falling away from a pure or correct version of constitutional interpretation. Instead, the persistence of cafeteria originalism in American constitutional culture reveals the deep rhetorical structure of American constitutional law. That is why non-originalists make originalist arguments all the time without thereby being converted to the originalist creed. And that is why conservative originalists have always had to leaven their theories with qualifications, exceptions, and epicycles.
Cafeteria originalism is our law. The most plausible versions of interpretive theory — including the most plausible versions of originalism — make their peace with cafeteria originalism; indeed, they enjoy the smorgasbord. Cafeteria originalism has multiple uses in American legal thought. It offers a powerful rhetoric for legal reform. It clears the ground for new doctrinal development. And it helps people express their contemporary values through appeals to constitutional memory.
Interpretive theories lie downstream from constitutional culture. Within that culture, originalist arguments are simply one element of a larger collection of rhetorical strategies. This produces the effect called cafeteria originalism. From the standpoint of the conservative originalism, this fact is a problem. But from the standpoint of American constitutional culture, it is perfectly normal. It is just what we do around here.
Highly recommended.