E.J. Dionne: ignorant or disingenuous?

E.J.Dionne attempts to discredit S.Ct. Antonin Scalia in a 6/20 WaPo article extolling judicial restraint--now that Liberal justices have run roughshod over judicial restraint for 30-some-odd years and can now claim to have "precedent" on their side. While he says some positive things about new Chief Justice John Roberts, Dionne can't resist the knee-jerk malicious comment about Scalia. Dionne writes:

Scalia's theory of "originalism'' holds that the one thing that matters is what the writers of the Constitution "originally'' meant. That often seems to correlate with what conservatives want to do, although Scalia will occasionally ditch his devotion to originalism if he needs another way to get to a conservative outcome. That's what happened last week in a, well, 5-4 decision expanding police search powers. A more libertarian approach, Scalia said, applied "in different contexts and long ago." So much for originalism.

What Dionne fails to realize (or perhaps acknowledge) is that there is no "police have to knock on the door before executing a warrant on a likely armed and dangerous suspect" clause in the Constitution. Frankly, much of judicial reporting or commentary is agonizing to me because of how either disingenuous or ignorant it is.