2 If there is no absolute rule for judges to stick to, then they end up in some sense making up the "Constitution" themselves.

I'd say Scalia requires more than just any absolute rule. If judges use a different rule besides "preserve the original meaning of the law," they're more likely to change the original meaning of the law.

3 Therefore absolute Originalism is not only correct, but is the only position that distinguishes between "judge" and "dictator."

I think Scalia would ADBOC to that statement. If you've ever read A Matter of Interpretation, Scalia's principles basically boil down to this: lawmakers should make laws, judges should not. He gives several justifications, most of which I've forgotten. The biggest one I can remember is that lawmakers are more accountable than judges.

He gave a good example in that book, from before he was on the supreme court. There was a law making it a crime to use a firearm in a crime. A drug dealer was charged under this law since he tried to trade an unloaded firearm for drugs. Although the panel of judges convicted the man, Scalia dissented. His opinion was that the lawmakers didn't intend for this type of crime to be considered the use of a firearm. If someone asks if you use a cane, you don't say, "Of course I do!" and then point to a framed cane on the wall.

The thing that really annoys me about Scalia is that he doesn't follow his own legal philosophy. His judicial opinions mirror his personal opinions, and that's the biggest problem with his philosophy: There are enough words in the constitution that you can take any opinion you currently hold and rationalize it as the founders' original intent.

ETA: Don't think I'm endorsing Scalia's position. As much as he hates to admit it, judges do change the law, and that is a good thing.