Progressives see the Constitution as something to be amended, even discarded, to address today's world. Originalists see the Constitution as finite, able to address any situation, more so as opinions rendered set precedence.
There is a legal process by which the constitution can be amended and if this legislative process is followed I have no problem with it whatsoever. The supreme courts job is to rule on existing law, not create new law, that is congress' job. The constitution has been around for 231 years and it has 27 amendments.
The only way progressives can seem to get their ideas through is to find and appoint judges that agree with them politically. They will say the constitution is a "living, breathing" document, which means they can interpret it any way that fits their needs and
feelings at that time instead of what was actually intended when the document was written. This way they can get around the process of trying push laws through that they know won't pass, they can instead appoint someone that will legislate from the bench.
Originalists see the constitution as it was written. It means what it says and doesn't have some hidden meaning to suit your needs at the time. If times have changed that much and something needs to be amended then you go through the amendment process and make it law but you don't let a small group change laws through the judiciary for the masses just because that's the direction they want the country going in the future.
You should not agree with every decision a judge makes even if you view him as on "your side of the isle", if you do then the judge is probably not very good at his job.