Now that Antonin Scalia has been buried, genuine criticisms of the man and his impact can begin. People who thought he was a horrible, politically-motivated jurist no longer have to hold their tongues, lest they be accused of insensitivity to his friends and family.
Jeffrey Toobin summarizes what is probably a widely-held view of Scalia. Scalia claimed to be an "originalist," ruling according to what the framers of our Constitution intended. I don't think interpreting the Constitution that way is what those framers intended. That's why they made ample provision for amendments, started amending the document themselves even as it was being ratified, and left many phrases — like what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" — for each assemblage of the Supreme Court to define based on current mores.
But even if "originalism" is what they wanted, it's not what we need. Those guys didn't think women or minorities were human beings. It's also not what is practiced by most (maybe all) of those who claim to be applying originalism as their standard. Certainly, Scalia did not.
What he was doing was finding ways to argue that what James Madison had in mind was exactly what he, Antonin Scalia, wanted the law to say. Like a con artist claiming to be conversing and therefore speaking with God, Scalia insisted his rulings came from a higher source no one could question. And don't tell me that isn't the way Scalia was because Ben Franklin told me and he oughta know.