No. Scalia was an originalist and a textualist. He wrote a book in which he defined both textualism and originalist/originalism. Scalia did not abandon being an originalist or originalism. He was both an advocate for originalism, an originalist, AND textualist. Textualist has a meaning. Originalist/originalism has a meaning. They are not synonymous meanings.
Barnett, Solum, Bork, are originalists and textualists. They aren’t looking for intent or original intent.
And Heller, an opinion written by Scalia, is a defining example of an originalist not concerning themselves with intent. The majority opinion, as written by Scalia, is very much searching for a “reasonable, public meaning” of the 2nd Amendment at or near time of ratification and not giving two cents about intent or original intent. The evidence and methodology used by Scalia in writing the majority opinion is had nothing to do with intent or original intent and everything to do with the reasonable public meaning at or near the time of ratification.
The originalist method in Heller of looking for the reasonable, public meaning. is the same method Scalia used elsewhere, such as his majority opinion Crawford v Washington, his dissent in Lee v Weisman, his concurrence in Citizens United v FEC, his concurrence in Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v Cleopatra Haslip, his dissent in Boumediene v Bush, his dissent in Hamdi v Rumsfeld, his majority opinions of United States v Jones and Florida v Jardines, are his use of original meaning and are not concerned with intent or original intent.
As I told you before, Scalia authored a book condemning intent and original intent.
Original intent enjoyed brief popularity in the easy to middle 80s. Scalia, Barnett, Solum, and other originalists wrote the obituary for original intent. Original intent has a small, and minority number of adherents. Originalists do not concern themselves with intent or original intent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
