> Originalism is as bad in jurisprudence as orthodoxy is in religions. It is extremely dangerous to act like there haven't been hundreds of years of civilizatory development in all areas since the scriptures were written. Originalism/orthodoxy/fundamentalism, especially one that doesn't take contemporary issues of the text's origin into mind, always is bad.
No it isn't. Your analogy doesn't really work because religious scriptures can't usually be amended (within the context of a single religion), while there are well-defined mechanisms for amending and updating law (e.g. what legislatures do all day). Basically: update the text itself with the needed changes, not the interpretation.
There are serious problems with using interpretation to update law: it makes the text ambiguous, because who knows how some loosely-constrained judge(s) will decide to "update" it in the future, and it's anti-democratic because it bypasses the democratic political bodies who's actual job it is to actually make the updates.
The problem with US constitutional law right now is that a lot of people want certain things to be "constitutional" when there's no actual consensus for doing so (a consensus isn't 50% + 1, it's "pretty much everyone agrees").
Actual originalism is impossible, even if you isolated yourself from social cults seeking to cultivate corrupt judges like the federalist society.
All humans have inherent biases and lenses and perspectives. Do jury duty sometime. Actual factual recollections vary in details and even factual accuracy
In an absolutely pure form? Sure, but that's true of most good things (e.g. justice). That doesn't mean the concept is bad or that shouldn't be pursued to the greatest degree possible, especially when the alternative is to have someone interpret the law like Humpty Dumpty when it suits them (https://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/humpty.html).
No it isn't. Your analogy doesn't really work because religious scriptures can't usually be amended (within the context of a single religion), while there are well-defined mechanisms for amending and updating law (e.g. what legislatures do all day). Basically: update the text itself with the needed changes, not the interpretation.
There are serious problems with using interpretation to update law: it makes the text ambiguous, because who knows how some loosely-constrained judge(s) will decide to "update" it in the future, and it's anti-democratic because it bypasses the democratic political bodies who's actual job it is to actually make the updates.
The problem with US constitutional law right now is that a lot of people want certain things to be "constitutional" when there's no actual consensus for doing so (a consensus isn't 50% + 1, it's "pretty much everyone agrees").