[gowld]

You're reversing. Originalists says "this law's authors didn't anticipate modern conditions, so the law must not change under modern conditions"

Non-originalists say "this law's authors didn't anticipate modern conditions, so we must project their intent onto modern conditions"

[Bartweiss]

I'm not reversing - I agree with you.

In this case, I think an original intent reading and a living Constitution reading lead to the same place. But I only mention that because the decision references intent; original intent scholarship is rare in general and basically absent on the court.

Original meaning is what's currently represented on the court, and is as you say: "the law must not change under modern conditions". That's what I'm suggesting was abandoned by its usual practitioners today.