“Textualism” and “originalism”

Ten years after his death, why Scalia's influence remains strong, and likely will continue to be:

Scalia was not just a judge but a philosopher: he sought to fundamentally change how we think about the role of a judge in a democratic nation. His view was very simple: if the law is to change, it should be changed by the people who wrote the law, not by nine unelected judges sitting on the Supreme Court. If your favorite right is not in the Constitution, amend it. If your favorite provision is not in the U.S. Code, ask Congress to add it. If you can’t convince your fellow citizens that the law should change, why should you be able to get your way through judicial fiat instead?

He called this view “textualism” for statutes and “originalism” for constitutional provisions, but the two terms are synonymous: judges should follow the original understanding of a text until the text is changed. The idea is so compelling it is hard to believe it was ever controversial. But it was – until Scalia joined the Supreme Court in 1986.

Since then, textualism and originalism have taken over the legal profession. ....

The trends are even bipartisan: one could argue that the best textualist on the Supreme Court today is Elena Kagan. As she admitted not too long ago, thanks to Justice Scalia, “[w]e’re all textualists now.” ....

It occurs to me that Scalia's approach to legal interpretation is a pretty good description of what biblical interpretation ought to be.

Brian Fitzpatrick, "Justice Scalia ten years later," SCOTUSBlog, Feb. 13, 2026.