As a trained historian, who was a professional historian before law school, Scalia's "history" reads like an undergraduate history research paper. Originalism, done right, should be done with interdisciplinary research/analysis. But nooo. Because "anyone" can do history.

ALSO, lawyers, judges, and professors using pre-1990's history articles. OK: in the 1980's & 90's, the historiography began to change. It incorporated race and gender into the analyses. I would be, and rightfully so, publicly shamed for using the OUTDATED sources you folks do.

Also, historians LOVE talking about how historical scholarship has developed. It's called historiography. Any topic you're writing about has a historiography essay. Read them. They are there to help guide you AWAY from historical interpretation traps.