This Supreme Court is, and always has been, political. The idea of the "textualist" or "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution as a philosophy is just propaganda invented in the 1980s shortly after the Federalist Society was founded. This court seems determined to overturn Chevron [1], which is the basis for deference given to administrative bodies empowered by Congress, the so-called "administrative state"…
The idea that the constitution is a written document that means what it says, or what it was intended to say, is neither propaganda nor was it invented in 1980. In fact, it’s obviously correct and it’s wild that we ever pretended otherwise. We aren’t talking about some ancillary provision here, or some detail where we could expect judges to fill gaps in the written text. The very first thing in the Constitution after…
It seems fair to say that you ascribe more importance to rigid fidelity to a 200-year-old document — written by people who knew far less about the world and lived in a much smaller and less-populous country — than to addressing the practical challenges of keeping a nation together, as circumstances change over the decades, in a semi-reasonable manner that kinda-sorta fits the document's text. In Christianity that's been referred to as "bibliolatry" — the idolatrous worship of the literal text of the Bible, in the manner of a golden calf.