<i>Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint, who believed that the further the Courts stretched interpreting law, the more vulnerable the Courts become to the animosities of the Executive and Legislative branches.</i><p>I don&#x27;t think that&#x27;s accurate. There is a position, albeit more in the academy than on the bench, that holds that judges should only in the rarest of circumstances hold that the actions of the other branches are unconstitutional. Scalia can&#x27;t fairly be described as being an adherent of that school.<p>Rather Scalia was foremost an originalist, it&#x27;s a school of legal thought that he helped pioneer as a law professor. Today judges and legal scholars needs to grapple with originalism -- agree or disagree you need to speak to it. And with Balkin and Amir&#x27;s spin on it, to borrow a quote, we are increasingly all originalists now. It&#x27;s can be hard to believe it now but it wasn&#x27;t always like this. When Scalia was going to law school no one was poring over the diaries of the founders or the records of the reconstruction congress looking for clues.<p>Scalia was by no means the sole person responsible for the rise of originalism, nor the purest advocate for it, but he was certainly a major major contributor to it. That&#x27;s what he will ultimately be remembered for, I think.