Originalism is a radical notion of the law which logically suggests that scalia would have ruled that sen. Marco rubio (r-fla.) and supreme court justice clarence thomas could have been forced by racist jurisdictions to attend segregated schools when they were students.
Originalism is the belief that the constitution should be interpreted solely through the lens of what was written when it was written, meaning that because abortion and gay marriage rights were not present at the time of the writing of the constitution, arguments to protect them cannot be used to expand the meaning of the constitution to address modern realities.
Originalism is a radical notion of the law which logically suggests that scalia would have supported the denial of women's right to vote as constitutional.
Originalism is sort of subspecies of textualism. It says that when you consult the text, you give it the meaning it had when it was adopted, not some later modern meaning.
Originalism is a radical notion of the law which, if adhered to during john marshall's court would have forced one to rule that slavery was constitutional and slaves are private property not guaranteed constitutional protection.
Originalism is partially incoherent in that privileging the original intent of the framers ignores that the framers themselves were in disagreement about constitutional issues before, during, and after the constitution's drafting.
Originalism is opposed to the idea of a living constitution on the grounds that, if the constitution is believed to morph from age to age to say whatever the people would want it to say, then you eliminate the whole purpose of a constitution.