Why did critics argue that originalism can still allow judges’ personal beliefs to influence decisions?

Critics of originalism argue that the method does not inherently identify a single, objective interpretation of the law, thereby leaving significant room for judges to allow their personal beliefs and biases to influence their decisions.1

The primary concerns raised by these critics include:

• Subjectivity in Historicism: Critics contend that the historical analysis required by originalism is not more objective than other interpretive methods. Because different judges can rely on similar historical records to reach contradictory conclusions, the process often fails to produce a definitive "correct" answer.1
• Selective Application: Opponents, including Justice Elena Kagan, have argued that judges may use originalist or textualist methods only when the results align with their preferred outcomes. When these methods conflict with broader ideological goals, critics suggest that judges may abandon them or employ "special canons" to reach their desired rulings.23
• Ideological Motivation: Because originalism was championed by conservative jurists like Antonin Scalia to counter what they termed "judicial activism," critics often view the theory itself as a tool used to advance conservative political agendas under the guise of neutral legal interpretation.21