> The point is that originalism relies on the idea that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form

No, it doesn't. It is simply the idea that the legal impact of an enactment is set by the meaning (for the textualist form or originalism) or intent (for the intentionalist form of originalism) of the law when passed (whether you are referring to a statute or the Constitution or anything else.)

It has nothing to do with belief about the merits of the Constitution prior to subsequent amendments.

And you would only take that approach as a judge in the United States if you believed that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form.

Why else? Point me at someone who believes the Constitution is deeply, deeply flawed and in serious need of major revisions yet takes an originalist approach in their jurisprudence.

> Why else? Point me at someone who believes the Constitution is deeply, deeply flawed and in serious need of major revisions yet takes an originalist approach in their jurisprudence.

All of the people who supported amendments?

> And you would only take that approach as a judge in the United States if you believed that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form.

Given that, despite the cases that get the most public attention at the highest levels, most judicial interpretation isn’t of the Constitution, that doesn't make sense; it also doesn't make sense otherwise, since the Constitution has had extensive (either from a textualist or an intentionalist perspective) radical changes within the perspective of originalism, so originalism is in no way incompatible with believing the 1789 Constitution needed major revision, even if one assumes that an originalist must be operating ends-first and looking to rationalize their desired end-state of Constitutional law, rather than honestly.

That is blatantly false, originalism is relying on both the Constitution + associated Constitutional Amendments. As OP mentioned, the latter are not set in stone.

> That is blatantly false

You're missing my point. And I don't care right now.

That's not true, and I'm not even an originalist at all. Their point is that you stick to the letter of the law (the constitution) rather than trying to bend it around current social norms and sensibilities. I've never met an originalist who thinks black people are "3/5" of a person. They will cite the 13th and 14th amendments if you do. Clearly they would feel that the Constitution shouldn't be changed ever if they felt the way you say they feel. They think if you want to change the Constitution (or laws in general) that you should pass a new law or amend the Constitution to fit the situation, not sidestep it with a liberal judge who thinks it should be interpreted through the lens of society or even social justice.