A Court without dissenters is a Court that will not adequately inform us of the costs of choosing the path taken. Eight Reasons to be a Non-Originalist 1. The framers at the Convention in Philadelphia indicated that they did not want their specific intentions to control interpretation. No written Constitution can anticipate all the means that government might in the future use to oppress people, so it is sometimes necessary for judges to fill in the gaps. Intentions of framers are various, sometimes transient, and often impossible to determine.
Text is often ambiguous and judicial precedents can be found to support either side.
It's better than flipping a coin. Non-originalism allows judges to head off the crises that could result from the inflexible interpretation of a provision in the Constitution that no longer serves its original purpose. Non-originalism allows the Constitution to evolve to match more enlightened understandings on matters such as the equal treatment of blacks, women, and other minorities. Originalists lose sight of the forest because they pay too much attention to trees. We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution.