“They were taught in law school how to look at words and come up with unique and novel arguments”
That is a bug/feature of the relatively new English language. Older languages have fewer words and expressions with ambiguous interpretations.
Now you are really getting into it.
How do you interpret a statute passed in say 1990, using the vocabulary of 1990, with the Constitution from 1787? The left says by using a “living breathing Constitution” as long as it goes to the left. I am guessing you reject that, so Scalia’s must be your man - textual-ism in statutory interpretation and original-ism in constitutional matters. The left agrees with Scalia only when it advances or protects leftism.