And you would only take that approach as a judge in the United States if you believed that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form.
Why else? Point me at someone who believes the Constitution is deeply, deeply flawed and in serious need of major revisions yet takes an originalist approach in their jurisprudence.
> Why else? Point me at someone who believes the Constitution is deeply, deeply flawed and in serious need of major revisions yet takes an originalist approach in their jurisprudence.
> And you would only take that approach as a judge in the United States if you believed that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form.
Given that, despite the cases that get the most public attention at the highest levels, most judicial interpretation isn’t of the Constitution, that doesn't make sense; it also doesn't make sense otherwise, since the Constitution has had extensive (either from a textualist or an intentionalist perspective) radical changes within the perspective of originalism, so originalism is in no way incompatible with believing the 1789 Constitution needed major revision, even if one assumes that an originalist must be operating ends-first and looking to rationalize their desired end-state of Constitutional law, rather than honestly.
Why else? Point me at someone who believes the Constitution is deeply, deeply flawed and in serious need of major revisions yet takes an originalist approach in their jurisprudence.