Originalism is a cover, not a real theory. Imagine being able to poll the members of the constitution convention in 1787 on some issue of today. What value would the advice of these white property owners, half of whom had slaves among their "property", have on most of the issues today? They did write a lot of vagueness into their document, specifically so that future Americans could figure out their own solutions—not theirs.

Those dudes were a lot wiser on this score than the current Supreme Court conservatives, or dolts like the judge you reference here. Originalism is bunk , and if they don't know that, they have no business serving as judges.

And if they do, they have no business serving as judges.