[capguy255]

I would take that as at best an argument that originalism could be applied in edge cases where a law is ambiguous and hasn't been applied or tested before -- but that's a rare situation, even among appellate courts where truthfully many situations could be decided based upon recent cases or controversies.

The difficulty of many recent legal controversies is not that they are legally difficult to resolve using typical jurisprudence but that the outcomes of the case are controversial. If that's what you mean about becoming a super-legislature, then the issue is probably with the nature of judicial review rather than how it's being done.

Legislative intent is frequently applied by scholars who subscribe to different legal philosophies but not necessarily tell the original intent of a law. Debates within a legislative body are probably better evidence than second hand sources, but on the other hand -- legislatures are typically made up of lots of individuals who don't speak with a unified voice, and there may be differing interpretations of the law.

[f154hfds]

Agreed completely - strict textualism usually can't take legislative deliberation into account directly except to handle ambiguities in the written text.

So I'm curious - without judicial review what realistic mechanism would we have to maintain our Bill of Rights etc?