Why did Antonin Scalia believe judges should use the original public meaning of constitutional language?

Antonin Scalia advocated for the use of the original public meaning of constitutional language—a philosophy known as originalism—primarily to restrain the judiciary and prevent judicial activism.1

Scalia believed that when judges interpret the law based on personal preferences, biases, or evolving societal views, they usurp the power of elected legislatures. By anchoring constitutional interpretation to the common understanding of terms at the time they were enacted, he sought to provide an objective basis for legal decisions. He argued that this approach was essential to minimizing the influence of a judge's personal beliefs and ensuring that matters not explicitly constrained by the Constitution remained subject to democratic processes or formal amendment.12

For Scalia, this method was a safeguard against the "living constitutionalism" approach, which he viewed as allowing judges to create law rather than merely interpret it. He maintained that even if his method was not perfect, it was superior to other interpretive theories at reducing inappropriate influences on judicial outcomes.13