Considering James Madison is considered the primary author of the US Constitution, of all people he would have been able to express his "original intent", yet the Supreme Court ruled against him. At what point did originalism become considered an acceptable judicial point of view for a Supreme Court Justice?
The question that Madison lost in that case was not a constitutional one, but one of statutory interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 13, which authorized the Supreme Court to issue the writ that Marbury had requested. The Supreme Court ruled that the Judiciary Act did authorize the Court to issue the writ, but that the section of the Act in question was unconstitutional, as Congress could not have given the Supreme Court jurisdiction over something not granted in the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2. Hence, Madison had nothing to do with the constitutional question.
Source: Marbury v. Madison