Textualism is just one of many excuses to rule the way you want to, as it leaves an immense amount of leeway to interpret.
A textualist reading of the First Amendment would permit the President to infringe free speech/religion/press etc. rights, as it says "Congress", and the "no law" bit would texutally forbid things like banning human sacrifice in religious ceremonies.
Textualists always find an out when they need one.
Do you have a better suggestion that’s less partisan and less prone to abuse?
Humans will always bring bias, but I can’t think of anything better than “interpret as it was plainly written and would have been understood by the people who wrote it at the time”.
Interpreting how it would have been understood at the time is quite subjective; how do we interpret how the Founding Fathers would've considered semi-automatic rifles or Facebook to fall in First/Second Amendment jurisprudence, or how far you can push the General Welfare Clause? The Founding Fathers themselves often disagreed on such things.
> Do you have a better suggestion that’s less partisan and less prone to abuse?
I'm of the opinion that textualism, in actual practice, is a highly partisan and heavily abused concept intended to be a thin veil over "I rule the way I want". I prefer the concept of a living Constitution; per Jefferson:
> I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Did you actually read the constitution end to end? It's not that big, and if you had you would have see that such things you propose aren't in line with the text
A textualist reading of the First Amendment doesn't permit banning human sacrifice in religious ceremonies.
A textualist reading of the Second Amendment doesn't permit banning of personally owned nuclear arms.
Textualists don't seem too interested in overruling the relevant unconstitutional laws in these cases.
(Yes, I've read it. It's vague - deliberately, I'd argue - in spots, like in defining "general welfare", and some folks like to pretend things like the Ninth Amendment don't exist at all.)
