On the Supreme Court, the two most committed originalists are Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Indeed, when Justice Thomas writes a separate opinion, urging the Court to return to first principles, the member most likely to join him is Justice Gorsuch. Still, these two originalists do not always agree. Perhaps one of the most striking examples of this discordance is Brackeen. Justice Gorsuch wrote a vigorous originalist decision which contended that ICWA was squarely supported by Congress's enumerated powers. And Justice Thomas wrote a vigorous originalist decision which argued that ICWA was beyond Congress's enumerated powers.
In many regards, this debate reminded me of Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), where Justices Scalia and Thomas vigorously disagreed about whether the recognition power belonged to Congress or to the President. In that case, there were so many respectful, but pointed back-and-forths between Scalia and Thomas. Here Scalia accused Thomas of favoring King George over George Washington:
Whereas the Court's analysis threatens congressional power over foreign affairs with gradual erosion, the [Thomas] concurrence's approach shatters it in one stroke. The combination of (a) the concurrence's assertion of broad, unenumerated "residual powers" in the President (b) its parsimonious interpretation of Congress's enumerated powers; and (c) its even more parsimonious interpretation of Congress's authority to enact laws "necessary and proper for carrying into Execu- tion" the President's executive powers; produces (d) a presidency more reminiscent of George III than George Washington.
