[JumpCrisscross]

> textualist interpretation of the constitution would likely take a very dim view of the federal government trying to stretch its powers and get around the Fourth Amendment

Scalia was textualist. "Justices Antonin Scalia, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch describe themselves as originalists in scholarly writings and public speeches" [1]. (In several cases, e.g. the application of Sarbanes-Oxley to the January 6th cases, they dismissed a textualist interpretation.)

Textualism would have trouble with this case because phones aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Originalism does better, which explains Riley.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

[lupire]

Originalism would also have trouble because phones didn't exist when the Frames wrote or the 18th Century public read the Constitution.

Originalism is funny, by the way. By its tenets, if you don't like what the Constitution says, you can pass an Amendment with the exact same words as the Constitution but those words would have new, different meaning.

[jojobas]

I'd say the position that "the Constitution means whatever I feel like today" is much funnier.

[philwelch]

Scalia’s originalism—the dominant strain today—is textualism, as explained in the very article you linked. Specifically it is originalism in terms of the original public meaning of the text, or in other words, textualism with the understanding that language changes over time.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Scalia’s originalism—the dominant strain today—is textualism

Sure. As I said, "Scalia was textualist." All dachshunde are dogs. Not all dogs are dachshunde.

[BenFranklin100]

Textualist/originalist a nit in the current context; neither are likely to overturn the case in question. Thanks for the clarification though.