Jennifer Senior, "In Conversation: Antonin Scalia", New York, 10/6/2013:
Q: Had you already arrived at originalism as a philosophy?
A: I don’t know when I came to that view. I’ve always had it, as far as I know. Words have meaning. And their meaning doesn’t change. I mean, the notion that the Constitution should simply, by decree of the Court, mean something that it didn’t mean when the people voted for it—frankly, you should ask the other side the question! How did they ever get there?
It's natural to be puzzled by this:
"Words have meaning. And their meaning doesn't change."
The second phrase is transparently false, which leaves us with the usual problem of interpretive abduction:
Maybe Justice Scalia was misquoted. You'd think that an interview of this kind would be recorded and and transcribed carefully, but journalists are sometimes amazingly careless about this type of thing.
Maybe he really thinks that word meanings don't change. This is unlikely, but conceivable.
Maybe he meant to express the tautology that what words meant in (say) 1789 is (and forever will be) what words meant in 1789. This seems to be the most likely theory, but if it's correct, he chose an unfortunate way to express himself, since what he actually said implies the obvious falsehood that what words meant in Shakespeare's time is exactly the same as what those words mean today.
To make sense of what he said, we're forced to reason in terms of the circumstances of the interaction and his likely communication intentions — and as I understand it, these are both factors that he himself prefers to banish from the interpretive process.
[There are obviously additional questions about how "word meaning", assuming it to be determinate and bounded as of a certain moment in time, should be applied in circumstances that are entirely outside of the experience and understanding of anyone living at that moment. But the point at issue here is intentionalism, not originalism.]