"The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words." "The Constitution, when it comes before a court, should mean exactly what it was intended to mean when it was adopted, nothing more, nothing less,"
Those statements don't seem consistent. Does Scalia care what the Founders intended to mean or not?
Clearly, Scalia doesn't care what the Founders intent was. Scalia is more a follower of "original meaning", not "original intent".