Yes, some very good points. Bork has asserted through a great many of his writings that it stands on the face; as it is written so shall it stand, and has for the most part discounted the context, the time, review of outside documents of writings such as the federalist papers and others of the time as his basis of interpretation. He has expressed the view that anything other than face value is an interpretation. I believe that to not take in the context, to take it on face value, and on face value alone, is in and of itself an interpretation.
I think taking a blind eye to the context and philosophical inference in which the work was undertaken is to take away its meaning and its foundation. I have always subscribed to words have meaning and reflect the author(s), to ignore the author(s) is to ignore their words and their intended meaning. In the end intent, has significance, it helps to espouse the underlying principal(s) that were trying to be form the basis of the document.
Careful now... you're confronting the single most predominant and defining characteristic of American theology ;^). But come to think of it: Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts are all Catholic; And Miers is said to be headed that way. (Contrary to numerous conflicting accounts, she is presently an Episcopalian attending a church flirting on the edge on a conservative schism.) Rehnquist was the last conservative Protestant on the bench.