It's a fairly basic principle that, while a law can be written in such a way that changing context is relevant to its application, it's meaning doesn't change unless a legislative act changes the law itself. So, no, when it comes to laws passed in 1789, we can't stop looking to what it meant in 1789.

Considering even just the slice of human history that contained both written history and structured government, the 18th century is very recent. Personally I find it more 'blind' that we don't cite older sources.

Who would you prefer we cite, if not those who wrote the laws that are being argued?

Time is relevant. It should not be treated like a footnote in considering the importance of certain laws. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, I think he would have used military force against Apple, or at the very least threatened Tim Cook to a duel.

To answer your question, the judges should cite their own judgement.

So your argument is that, because a lot of time has passed since the All Writs Law was passed, judges should take it to mean whatever they want it to mean.

On that bit about you seeing what all others fail to see, I suggest that you look up "The Dunning-Kruger Effect".

That you mischaracterize Jefferson as a duelist suggests that you are not sufficiently well versed in history to judge its value.

Hm. Maybe Adams. It was Jefferson who pardoned those Adams imprisoned for sedition.

If you can refactor the US Code, you will either be a billionaire or dead by morning.

Being the only one who sees something is an almost certain indication of being in error. In this case, your errors are remarkably numerous for such a short comment.