https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...p-originalism/
this is originalism in a nutshell.
As usual, Yoo is a model of clarity:The point of originalism . . . is not whether the right in question is good or bad, but which institution of government should make the decision. If you believe, as I do, that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not prohibited by the Constitution, that does not end the matter. The Constitution simply moves the issue to the political branches of the federal government and the states. The president and Congress can ban such discrimination by the federal government — as it recently did with the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” — and the states can make up their own minds.
this is their take on the "living document doctrine" which in inherently political. it also has been noted with "religious" ferver.
Some conservatives noted that it resembled religious fervor, but it did not resemble that: It was not something like religious fervor but actual religious fervor, the thing itself.
Which is to say, the Left will not take up originalism because the political process can give progressives only some of what they want. Democracy may provide the policy outcomes they desire, but progressives desire much more than that. They desire domination for its own sake, as a source of pleasure, and that domination grows more desirable the more closely the instrument of domination resembles a religious body
Why the Left Won’t Take Up Originalism
