Of course, Justice Scalia is correct that failure to understand any such contemporaneous meanings of these terms would lead a modern reader to misinterpret what Queen Anne may have said. However, on its face, this example does not apply to the interpretation and application of an ongoing legal rule.
Although they have endorsed the outcome in Obergefell, Ian Millhiser and Andrew Koppelman have disparaged so-called "substantive due process" -- the notion that the Due Process clause protects individual rights, including those not expressly listed in the Constitution's text, from being violated by the government.
In King v. Burwell, decided last Thursday, the Supreme Court has once again (no doubt inadvertently) given us a lesson in the philosophy of language. The dispute in the case is over the meaning of the phrase "exchange established by the state." Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, argues that the phrase can and should be read to include an exchange established by the federal government. He explains that "exchange established by the state" is ambiguous because when read in context (as he proceeds to do) it means something different than it does when read in isolation. Justice Scalia retorts that by the logic of such a reading, "everything is ambiguous." That's both right and not right.