Some people claim that original intent is the only right way to interpret the Constitution. Well, there is no "right" way to interpret the Constitution. All justices who have been on the Supreme Court have claimed to faithfully interpret the Constitution, as it was originally written. No Supreme Court justice has ever based an opinion on his own beliefs or claimed there was something in the Constitution that there wasn't. All the rights the SCOTUS says we now have, it's all in there. Some rights have been expanded, and some rights are so fundamental they don't have to be listed in the Bill of Rights. Original intent wouldn't really work anyways. Because a lot has changed since 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Drawing and quartering was not considered cruel and unusual. Women had no rights. And the accused could be subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, and might not have the same level of access to evidence as modern defendants. When justices on the Supreme Court say they are following the original intent of our founders, they just mean according to them. IOW they are using judicial activism, reinterpreting the Constitution for their own purposes. The Warren Court did that a lot. But now all the Warren Court rulings are precedent. And to upset them would be judicial activism. Some people think that Supreme Court justices should rule from the Bible, or cite things like unlimited gun rights, which is found nowhere in the Constitution. They would be unqualified if they thought that. (Although in 2008 for the first time in US history the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment does apply to private firearm ownership. Even though the very conservative Supreme Court justice Warren Burger said in 1986 that's just not true.)
Also some people like I've said, think Harry Blackmun was a raving liberal. Well, he was appointed to the court in 1970 by Richard Nixon as a conservative, and he was a lifelong Republican. Before that he was appointed to the lower courts by President Eisenhower in 1959. (He never switched parties BTW.) And Democrats used to complain he always seemed to side with the police and prosecutors. And although he was in favor of the separation of church and state, he was practicing Methodist all his life, and was buried in the Methodist church when he died. And you do realize judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, though a Democrat, were more conservative than him in many ways. John Paul Stevens was also all those things. And he was also a veteran and often sided with fellow veterans in important cases. That's why he voted with the conservatives on the flag burning issue in 1989 with Texas v. Johnson. The much more conservative Antonin Scalia voted with the liberals on that one.