This article—which points out mistakes in conservative scholarship promoting the "unitary executive" theory—illustrates a major problem with originalism. No one likes to admit error, especially not judges. And there's no incentive for acknowledging that you read history wrong.

Once the Supreme Court locks into a particular reading of history, that interpretation gains precedential force. It becomes entrenched in the law. By the time new evidence emerges that suggests history was misinterpreted, it might be too late. Bad history now binds the judiciary.
This is one potential solution but I don't think the self-professed originalists on the Supreme Court will ever admit error. A ton of evidence has piled up refuting key claims in Scalia's Heller opinion and the Republican-appointed justices just ignore it.
https://t.co/PSTuOC6qRB

You May Also Like

1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.

Please add your own.

2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you


3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.

“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”

“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”

4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:

“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”

“What’s end-game here?”

“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”

5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:

“What would the best version of yourself do”?