I think the argument is based on textualist interpretations not actually being how the Constitution is interpreted. The Constitution tends to be interpreted as

I think the argument is based on textualist interpretations not actually being how the Constitution is interpreted. The Constitution tends to be interpreted as a “living document” where the courts imagine what the founders would have thought if they were writing it today. For example, the First Amendment makes no mention of speech contained inside of books, and a strict reading would exclude such a thing. However, the Supreme Court has held many times that “speech” includes things that are not literal speech. Another would be your Miranda Rights; The Supreme Court “made them up” based on the Fifth Amendment. Despite them not existing in the actual text, it has been held many times by lower courts and the Supreme Court that it does cover those rights. Although, some on the Supreme Court would still disagree (Thomas, for example). There’s also a belief that the Federalist Society is more common among small-government and right-wing politicians, who use the textualist interpretation as a way to take rights away. For example, Roe v. Wade was roughly based on your right to privacy with a doctor, but right-wing politicians and judges used the fact that abortion isn’t in the Constitution at all as an argument to overturn it.