Originalism is easily unmasked. Here is an example of how easily. A potentially very great embarrassment for originalists, especially for those who, being or aspiring to become judges, lack the tenured academic's freedom to be outrageous, is that the unflinching embrace of originalism would require overturning many cases that have achieved canonical status.
(Richard A. Posner, How Judges Think [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2008], 342)
Note from KBJ: Judge Posner doesn't understand the point of a normative legal theory. It is not to generate the very same results we have. It is to provide the basis for criticism of the results we have. No self-respecting originalist would be "embarrassed" by the fact that originalism requires "overturning many cases that have achieved canonical status." That's like saying that utilitarians are embarrassed by the fact that utilitarianism requires rejecting many considered (or conventional) moral judgments. They're not the least bit embarrassed by it; or, if they are, they're willing to bite the bullet. To bite the bullet, philosophically speaking, is to stick with one's theory (even) when it produces "painful" results. I'm sure Judge Posner bites his share of bullets, for his theory of adjudication—pragmatism—implies that certain cases were wrongly decided; he should not deny originalists the same opportunity.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 