This interesting thread from @lsolum brings to mind an idea for a great symposium: have Originalist scholars discuss whether they like or dislike the Constitution as a policy matter. /1
Given that a common criticism of Originalism is that it tends to reflect the author’s preferences, you could evaluate that by having Originalists explain their preferences and show how far the Constiution is from it. /2
The reader could then assess how much the scholar's constitutional views differ from their policy preferences as a whole. It wold not only be interesting to assess that scholar's work, but the group's work as a whole. How much correlation is there across the board? /3
It would be an extremely powerful counter to the objection that it's all disguised policy, for example, if it turns out that there is zero or little correlation between a scholar's policy views and their views of the Constitution. /4
Conversely, it would be a powerful counter to originalism, at least as applied, if it turns out that there is a very high correlation between those two. Scholars writing about their policy views, and how much their view of Const matches or doesn't, could let all assess that. /5
And after that is done, it would also be fascinating to have a second symposium asking the same questions for avowed non-originalists. You could then compare the degree of policy vs. const correlation for originalists and non-originalists, and see if there is a difference. /6
And if there is a difference, which way does it cut -- are self-described originalists less likely to have their constitutional views reflect their policy preferences than non-originalists, or more likely, or does it make no difference either way? /7
