A rant:

There is nothing humble or restrained about taking an "originalist" approach to interpreting the Constitution.

Quite the contrary, an originalist has the gall, the immodesty, the activist approach to assume he or she knows how someone they didn't know, who is long dead, would interpret the Constitution in the context of present day cases and controversies.

Let's be clear: originalism is fantasy role-play cloaked as a valid legal exercise. It's a smokescreen for imposing a judge's own regressive views. A fancy word for "I fear change".

If you think human thought and legal understanding peaked in 1789, you should not be in a position of deciding questions involving the rights of people who were enslaved or else oppressed at that time.

We should not be ruled by dead people. And the Constitution itself acknowledges this by the process for amendment and the INTENTIONAL use of language that leaves space for interpretation.

The Constitution is a living document. It is an 18th century document that left space for who we would become.