As opposed to the very coherent legal view of a "living constitution"? Because sure, textualism can seem arbitrary at times, but it at least tries not to be. I

As opposed to the very coherent legal view of a "living constitution"? Because sure, textualism can seem arbitrary at times, but it at least tries not to be. I don't understand what's more coherent about judges basically ignoring or rewriting the laws in whatever way they want, and do it openly under the pretext that they felt like "things just change bro, society is just different now & they didn't mean what they wrote anyways" It sounds pretty harsh but to me it's boils down to this: while textualism can lead to excesses & dubious interpretations by judges...The alternative can lead to any interpretation since it surrenders the entire judicial process to the judges while hoping they won't go too far because they just wouldn't dare?