They write vague statutes on purpose so they can be widely applied as needed. It's impossible to write a statute for every foreseeable and unforeseeable but applicable context because the world, technology and society is constantly changing. Judges are supposed to use the intent of statutes and then apply it to the case at hand. Legislators can't write specifically to every case that will land before a judge. It is a process to come to consensus to pass legislation. It's vague to it can be useful today and hopefully tomorrow.

" but I did not get the sense that Originalism was given a fair reading or interpretation by either Jeffrey or Justice Breyer". Maybe that's because it should be left to the originalist to give that meaning as neither men belong to that camp. Of course understanding what it is and isn't, I always like to go to one of my favorite scholars Erwin Chemerinsky. Enjoy. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qbaAoMSaz7yopWQ.html

Because it's supposed to be a living document. Honest question: How can the Constitution that was written hundreds of years ago when things in society were drastically different be useful if only the literal meanings of the words and how they applied then are used to decide the issues of today's society? What Justice Breyer is saying is not too far from what I think you might mean. If the Founders advocated for a more equitable society even though it was not the reality of when the Constitution was originally written, which imbued the meaning of the words including, "We the People", then we can't simply look only at the words but also their purpose and intent. As Justice Breyer points out, women and slaves were not part of the democratic process nor were people of color when the Constitution was written. A textualist might perhaps argue that since these groups were not part of the intent of the Framers, then women and people of color shouldn't vote today. The world changes. That's the main point. We need to look at what was the purpose and intent of the statutes and the Constitution in addition to the literal meaning of the words such as what does "judicial" or "executive" mean. We're in 2024. How are we supposed to have a functioning society if we try to use the purpose, thinking and intent from a society that no longer exists?

@@camiliafuentes3509 “supposed to be a living document”. According to who? What or who gives a Supreme Court justice the power to change the meaning of the Constitution? You don’t like what it says? See article 5. See article 1.