Why Legal Originalism Is Stupid

Garrett Epps:

But Scalia's opinion for the Court tried to deal with global satellite and massive computer technology with "originalist" methods: what would the Founding Fathers have thought if a colonial-era sheriff had tracked a bad guy by hiding a constable in his carriage. Seriously, grandpa? Alito retorted. "This would have required either a gigantic coach, a very tiny constable, or both -- not to mention a constable with incredible fortitude and patience." 

Alito pointed out that there are plenty of ways for law enforcement to use GPS technology to track us without touching a thing: 

For example, suppose that the officers in the present case had followed respondent by surreptitiously activating a stolen vehicle detection system that came with the car when it was purchased. Would the sending of a radio signal to activate this system constitute a trespass to chattels?... [C]ell phones and other wireless devices now permit wireless carriers to track and record the location of users -- and as of June 2011, it has been reported, there were more than 322 million wireless devices in use in the United States.

Why the hell would we look to a bunch of 18th century slave owners and wearers of powdered wigs to determine whether police could use satellite positioning technology to track suspects without a warrant?  And that was the majority opinion?  Holy shit!  In what world does trying to channel the thoughts of folks dead for 200 years for the latest legal opinion on cutting edge technology make sense?  I don't understand how this concept of constitutional law can be taken seriously by anyone.