From Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom:
Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the amendment process is precisely how the Constitution is supposed to be changed — the left, naturally, prefers using courts they’ve stacked with politicized judges who believe it their role to rule in favor of “social justice” rather than apply the law — what Lithwick is suggesting here is, like Ezra Klein before her, the Constitution can’t be appealed to in any kind of serious way because, as a document framed by a number of different people with differing agenda’s, it essentially has no usable intent, and so is only useful insofar as it can be currently coaxed to “mean” whatever it is that is useful to a particular political agenda. That is, the Constitution, being old and group-ratifed, has a meaning that is unrecoverable — the result being that it only means what we now can successfully pretend it means, without recourse to the intent of the framers and ratifiers (who being different people, can’t have possibly agreed on what the document meant when they decided to vote for its ratification).
This is where textualism takes you.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you.