> This is probably why originalism is more what one hears about these days. I agree. I think most conservatives tend to identify more with self-styled Original

> This is probably why originalism is more what one hears about these days. I agree. I think most conservatives tend to identify more with self-styled Originalist scholarship and perspectives. But Scalia made a name for himself academically by coining Original Meaning, which is a twist on strict textualism in the context of constitutional interpretation intended to mitigate the harmful consequences--a legislature can't resolve textual ambiguities in constitutional text as easily as it can statutes. Scalia and others spilled much ink distinguishing Originalism from Original Meaning. At least in terms of scholarship Scalia was consistent that way. Regarding the Terry Schiavo case (which is a good point, BTW): that the Congress is empowered to do something doesn't mean using that power isn't a violation of general principles of the law. As the Trump years have proved, and which bitter partisanship was already making clear, much of the law as we understand it is normative even in the U.S. And while I think Congress' intervention in the Schiavo case was wrong on almost every level, it's also true that violations of general principles can be used to prevent an injustice. There's often a tension between equity (i.e. fairness) as it regards particular individuals, and the maintenance of general rules and principles. Justice can be a matter of perspective and priorities. That's one reason why courts can and should jealously guard certain discretions (see, e.g., the Michael Flynn, Judge Sullivan Rule 48(a) debate) and independent powers. (EDIT: I realized after the fact that by referencing the Flynn/Sullivan dispute it's ambiguous which discretion I'm referring to--the court's or the government's--but that ambiguity kinda drives home the point regarding the importance and role of discretion. For the record I support Sullivan's position, but it's a very technical debate.) Circling back to Originalism: resolving that tension is one reason behind the emergence and support of so-called Substantive Due Process, which can be construed as the court giving effect to a right (newly discovered or simply never before honored, depending on your perspective) by refusing to give effect to the government's nominal power to violate it--i.e. by procedurally blocking the government. Which is why it's unfair to characterize Substantive Due Process as an oxymoron, at least as it was originally developed by abolitionists at the turn of the 19th century. (Since then courts have been more aggressive at using their equitable powers, which means more than procedurally blocking government actions by, e.g., refusing to hear a prosecution for sodomy or a replevin action regarding an escaped slave, courts affirmatively give effect to a right by enjoining government actions that aren't gated behind a judicial process.)