The problem is that original intent is so often fuzzy. What did the founders intend about imprecise words in a changing nation, with new issues and problems, a nation that they well knew would change, although not nearly as drastically as it has?
There is no legislative history attending the Constitution's writing, and the Bill of Rights. Much of that is a "riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." The second amendment is a case in point, along with the 9th and 10th amendments, and the equal protection clause.
Other tools are needed, a lot of them, process issues in voting (a level playing field in the public square), the effects on the economy, expectations, avoiding Constitutional crises, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, changing notions as to what certain words mean in a changing world, such as cruel and unusual. Simple nostrums don't often work in complex cases, or cases with great import on the public square. They just don't.
The founding fathers took care of that, they gaveus the Ammendment process.
Cruel and unusal is really easy for me, just check the statues of what was allowed by the 13 states and check for any over rulings in the fist 50-100 years. OK, maybe that's a nod to stare decisis, but I'm lazy and stare decisis is for us lazy jurists.
To think how much of the govenment I could invalidate with the 10th ammendment. The entire regulatory apparatus....bwahahahaha
Maybe I should go to law school, hitch myself to a rising star so I can get a judgeship and then write plain vanilla opinions for 20 years until I get on SCOTUS and then let it rip. (/more evil laughter)
If we want "outcomes based" jusrices we should find 9 O'Conners.
My two favorite comments from the Roberts hearings were that 1) he'd be offended to be called an outcome based judge and 2) he did not believe in using international law.