No, because no one has yet taken the position that Supreme Court justices make arguments about how to interpret statutes. The opinions of lawmakers would of course have no relevance when a textual originalist was making a decision.

However, my indisputable point remains and always will: the opinion of the lawmaker is not irrelevant. You may be able to point to a person to whom it is not relevant, and you may be able to argue about what relevant means (hint FRCP 401; and “relevance is a low bar”), and you may even dispute whether this interview counts as legislative history, but you will not be able to successfully dispute the relevance of legislative history.