Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's new book has exposed a contradiction at the center of his judicial philosophy: although Alito describes himself as an originalist, even some conservative reviewers conclude that his decisions are driven more by politics than by principle.

Writing on Tuesday, Vox's Ian Millhiser argued that the backlash to Alito's book amounts to a bombshell for the right, which now appears to recognize that the justice has been less than candid in his originalist arguments.

Alito's book, So: An Originalist's View of the Constitution, the Court, and Country, is largely a collection of speeches he has previously delivered. Yet reviews by Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, The Washington Post's Jason Willick, and libertarian writer Damon Root found the book puzzling given its title and the justice's departure from originalist practice. That the sharpest pushback comes from writers broadly aligned with the legal right makes this an intramural dispute for the conservative legal movement, the circles that have spent decades elevating originalism into their governing judicial philosophy.

Originalism holds that cases should follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution, with words read according to their original public meaning at the time the relevant case arose or the law was written. The doctrine rose to prominence in conservative legal circles in the late twentieth century, with the late Justice Antonin Scalia its most visible champion on the Court. Conservatives have used the doctrine to justify preventing judges from substituting personal preferences for the law. But the conservatives who reviewed Alito's book argue that the justice frequently appears to select his political beliefs first and then construct an originalist justification after the fact.

Root examined Alito's comments on the gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago (2010). The Court, he explained, faced two questions: first, whether the Second Amendment applies against state and local governments as it does against the federal government, and second, if it does apply against the states, how it should be applied.

"The historical evidence in the case all pointed in the same direction: The most thoroughly and consistently originalist way of applying the Second Amendment against the states was via the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment," Root wrote for Reason.

Alito rejected that originalist argument — and, evidently, still rejects it. "To make his current case, Alito has enlisted the aid of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who vocally opposed the Privileges or Immunities argument during the McDonald proceedings," Root quoted. "'Why did Scalia, a former law professor, say that?' Alito wrote in the Journal. 'Because accepting the Privileges or Immunities argument would have opened a can of worms. Libertarians, social conservatives, progressives, socialists and others could all make a pitch for whatever rights they favored.'"

To be fair, Root noted, any judicial decision can open a can of worms. "If the Constitution demands that the government stop acting in a certain way, why should a self-professed originalist put his fears about opening a can of worms ahead of his judicial duty to follow the constitutional text where it leads?" he asked.

As Millhiser observed, Alito argues that originalism must produce "good results" to remain influential. Willick posed the obvious question in his review: good according to whom? The concern is that Alito's standard effectively allows his political preferences to determine when originalism deserves to be followed and when it can be ignored.

Millhiser also cited the dispute over Consumer Financial Protection Bureau funding. Alito delivered lengthy historical excursions into conflicts between Parliament and the English monarchy. Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the opinion for talking a good game about history without directly connecting it to the U.S. Constitution. In Millhiser's reading, the episode exemplifies historical storytelling repackaged as originalist analysis.

Then there is the question of how Alito justifies opposing a practice during President Barack Obama's administration while supporting it under President Donald Trump. As Goldsmith explained in his analysis, Alito has sided with the Trump administration in every important second-term case, including dissenting when the administration suffered major defeats. No comparable pattern marked the Obama years.

Millhiser noted that originalism gives justices a rationale for overturning precedents by claiming that earlier decisions somehow misunderstood the Constitution's original meaning — a feature that makes the method politically useful without guaranteeing consistent application. That, he suggested, raises the question of whether Republicans may ultimately abandon originalism entirely in order to more explicitly adopt ideological judging or personal loyalty to Trump. For a doctrine whose stated purpose is to keep judges tethered to the law rather than their preferences, the most pointed questions now come from reviewers on Alito's own side of the aisle.