Hell that’s very likely, I’m just some idiot on the Internet - but my point is that the Internet didn’t exist in the age of the Founders (like many things) and while it could be possible to find an appropriate analog for every case that the Supreme Court might be deciding, it’s pointless, because the decisions being…

drones, encryption, warrantless wiretapping, patent trolling, mandatory vaccination, good God I could go on.

Explain your “18/19th century analog” to the Internet, television, video gaming or perhaps just come up with something other than a dismissive “No, sir”. If you have an argument, make an argument rather than a terse statement wherein you misspell “convenient”.

This article perfectly expresses the fault with Scalia’s “originalism” ethos - not to say that I necessarily believe that the decision in this case was wrong, but the reasoning is asinine.