How did Antonin Scalia’s originalism guide his interpretation of the Constitution?

Antonin Scalia’s originalism was a judicial philosophy centered on the belief that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted based on the common public meaning of its words and phrases at the time they were enacted.12

By anchoring his interpretation in this fixed historical context, Scalia aimed to restrain the judiciary and prevent what he termed "judicial activism," where judges might otherwise impose personal preferences or biases under the guise of evolving legal standards. He explicitly rejected the "living constitutionalism" approach, which views constitutional meaning as variable and adaptable to modern societal changes.132

For Scalia, this method was essential for maintaining the separation of powers, as it left matters not explicitly addressed by the Constitution to be resolved through democratic processes or formal amendments. While he was often criticized for using this method to reach conservative outcomes, he maintained that originalism provided a more objective, disciplined framework for legal decision-making than alternative interpretive theories.1