Originalists want it to be interpreted in the way it was intended. They go to great lengths to discover the original intent behind the law as it was understood at the time of writing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
I’m honestly amazed that any other position but originalism is considered rationally tenable. Laws are written with an intended meaning and understanding. The idea that the intent and meaning of law should change with time is ridiculous. The law should be changed if people come to find it disagreeable, not reinterpreted. Judicial activists seek to subvert the will of the legislature, and in that way they are criminals.
[1] I don't remember the case, it may have been McDonald or Heller.
This is not even considering that a lot of their known ideas were absolutely terrible.
Activist wing thinks it needs to be interpreted within the current framework of judicial, social and political viewpoints while originalism wants it to be interpreted in the way it was originally written. It's hard to say one way or another.
Activits would claim Brown vs Board created the march to racial equality, while originalist would say passing of Civil Rights Law is the appropriate way. It's a debate that is not going away anytime soon.