Originalism in SCOTUS lost its path in Marbury v. Madison, IMO, and it only got worse from there. Too many people view the constitution as our rights giver when in fact, it's a document that enumerates only specific powers to the government and that all else is to remain untouched. A major veering off point of originalism begins after dred scott. When congress and the people ratified the 14th amendment giving former slaves and new non-white children the same rights as white people, SCOTUS adopted selective incorporation. This from 'conservative' court, stating that the constitution only applied to the federal government was really nothing more than judicial gymnastics to promote an ideology of the jurists on the bench. This was hugely expanded upon by the FDR administration and the so called 'switch in time that saved nine' period.
The switch in time that saved nine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The constitution is a legal document and legal documents do not evolve. They have to be modified by written agreements to express changes in dynamics and points of law, authority, and powers. The framers of the constitution purposefully wrote in a documented process to amend the constitution as the people saw fit to do so as needed. To use the 'living document' theory is non-originalist.
There are records of the constitutional conventions. All one has to do is read the federalist and anti-federalist papers to get a very solid understanding of what the framers intended for the sovereign power in their new nation.
My opinion is that true actual originalism should still exist to limit the governments powers, preserving all rights and liberties to the people, and less social engineering by the design of 9 black robed individuals.