Also, not to derail the thread too much, I am an originalist, but an originalist’s view of the correct hermeneutical approach to the constitution does not, necessarily anyway, have anything to do with political outcomes. I have posted many times that I think the political process is important, by constitutional design and policy, and that rights not explicit in the constitution should not be created from whole cloth because the constitution reserves those issues for the people. There are scores of issues where I think the constitution does not create rights but the legislature should, including homosexual activity, homosexual unions and the attendant rights, abortion rights, various areas of criminal procedure, etc. Rights creation is a one-way ratchet. A holding that the constitution creates rights grants them, and they can’t be undone until the decision is overruled. But a holding that the constitution doesn’t create a right can always be practically overruled by the legislature simply enacting a law creating the right at issue. Originalism is thus an exercise in democracy, whereas activism is an exercise in oligarchy.