[AnimalMuppet]

Well, your post sure read like a strawman, so that seemed like a rather reasonable assumption. (This one is much better.)

> OP's point was that judges should not be political...

Yes.

> ... and to that extent -- other judicial philosophies are better at constraining politics than originalism.

That's where I think you've got some proving to do. In particular, if you care about the text but not the original intent, how do you interpret the text? What other than the original intent should rule how you interpret the text? And how is that other thing - whatever it is - less subject to being politicized than the original intent is?

> How do you prove or disprove original intent? How do you sufficiently vet historical research to ensure that it's accurate? If a central finding in a judicial case is based on historical analogy that subsequent research shows to be false, what is the proper correction -- does the court on its own make an effort to correct the record, do they throw out the original case, or do you treat every case as one-off attempts to divine the truth based on an imagined historical record?

I don't think the historical record or the documentation of intent is that hard to come by, even for the Constitution. Things since then have even more record.