The argument against anything else is that they all turn the court into a policy making body in various forms, instead of trying to stay as objective about interpretation as they can.

Whether that's good or bad depends on your view.

Objective and originalist are different things, and the constitution has never been immutable, hence the large number of amendments.

I think this was a tactic by the defenders of IPR, rather than some deeply-held belief. We have at least four self-styled originalists (but see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1422048) on the Court, and they want to hear arguments about what 18th Century politicians thought about patent rights.