Should the US Supreme Court apply originalism or interpretationism when ruling?

The Supreme Court's task is to interpret the meaning of laws, not to read them literally. Or so say most, but not all and originalism is resurging within the Court.

This interpretive function falls into two broad categories: statutory interpretation and constitutional interpretation. So what is the right application of these jurist approaches and when? Should popular opinion be considered when ruling?

When interpreting laws, the Supreme Court may consider the following:

Plain meaning
The court may rely on the plain meaning of a law to determine what Congress or a state legislature intended.

Legislative history
The court may turn to the written record of how the bill became a law, also known as the legislative history.

Textualism
The court may use a textualist approach, which means it doesn't rely on the broad dictionary-definition of each word in the text, but on how the words together would be understood by a reasonable person.

Original intent
The court may interpret the Constitution the way the Founders intended, keeping in mind what the framers meant the Constitution to mean.

Legal structuralism
The court may use legal structuralism, which means searching for the meaning of a particular constitutional principle by reading it against the larger constitutional document or context.

Join us and share you thoughts on how the highest court in the land should form its opinions!

Event to be held at UWM Student Union, First level (one level up from ground level).

Looking forward to a spirited and productive chat as well as meeting new friends with this event!