> Some have been suckered into thinking something like an "originalist" or "textualist" interpretation of the US constitution is somehow a real thing. It's not.

> Some have been suckered into thinking something like an "originalist" or "textualist" interpretation of the US constitution is somehow a real thing. It's not. In fact, it's a fairly modern invention from the Nixon era created with the expressed purpose of rationalizing a socially conservative agenda. It's not less real or moderns than the "Living Constitution" Theory which dates to the progressive era and was first tested in a case that overturned the government's first attempt at an income tax. Moreover a proper originalist interpretation of the wiretaps and indeed many technological searches is that they violate the 4th amendment as Scalia found in a GPS related case and Gorsuch dissented in several more recent cases. Scalia was kind of all over the map on police powers and Thomas just makes shit up so I think there's plenty of room to criticism them.