Should biblical literalists hesitate before embracing originalism?

Peter Smith and Bob Tuttle have posted a new paper, Biblical Literalism and Constitutional Originalism, in which they note that proponents of biblical literalism have generally embraced constitutional originalism when they enter the judicial-political sphere.  A snippet:

[B]oth critics of originalism and literalists who urge originalism as an approach to constitutional interpretation have failed to identify the fundamental differences between the two approaches. For literalism, interpretation is an act of faith in a God who is just and good. Accordingly, for the literalist, obedience to the biblical text - the Word of God - is the highest human good. Originalism, in contrast, demands loyalty to the text regardless of its moral quality; just or good results are accidental rather than necessary features of originalist interpretation.