JD, I don't know how I can explain this more simply.
Scalia does not share your philosophy. Scalia does not have a philosophy, other than his conservative leanings.
If he only speaks the language of originalism when it gives him a favorable result, then he's not using it as a judicial philosophy, he's using it as a fig leaf. It had nothing to do with his decision process, and everything to do with ex post facto justification.
Yeah, I know that he talks up originalism in his public speaking appearances. Bush talked about a commitment to spreading democracy. That doesn't mean that was his "real" philosophy, and that his policies towards all of our ME allies were exceptions.
It just meant that he, like Scalia, wanted people to see him as a man of principle rather than a grubby practitioner of realpolitik. Don't be duped by it.
PS "Oh yeah, well since the world is so binary, I bet you totally love this other guy, right?" You bitch about me making you explain actual positions you took, then expect me to defend someone I've never said boo about? Motes and beams, duder.