Those who reject originalism as a judicial philosophy generally say that the Constitution is a "living document" which changes in meaning as society changes. Further, they believe that the Supreme Court, a small unelected body with life-long terms, has the final say in what that dynamic meaning is.
One critique of a Living Constitution is that "allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy." Judges are much less accountable to the people than congress or the president. Thus, many argue that allowing judges discretion to interpret the Constitution in new and creative ways gives them power to thwart the will of the more democratic governmental bodies and undermine the power of the public to change policy.
Many advocates of a Living Constitution see democracy and the power of people to change government as a great good. For example, President Barack Obama supports a living constitution:
I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution -- that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.
But President Obama also very much believes in the will of the people and democracy, saying things like:
Nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.
President Obama is just one example; many politicians and political/legal thinkers share this belief. What arguments or justifications do people with a strong belief in the democratic process make to reconcile that belief with their support for a "living" or loose interpretation of the Constitution by judges?