It feels like I just went through my rant regarding originalism in my Scalia post of a couple of days ago and am kind of past it for now, but just to add--one is occasionally surprised by the admiration that conservative legal minds show for the founding fathers in that they have an unwavering faith in their prescience--to have foreseen what conservative legal minds would have wanted them to believe and to have really intended that very viewpoint, regardless of whatever else might have been said or written by yon esteemed and dead philosophic forbears.
And once a certain caprice enters into one's worldview, one can then be equally appalled that laws would be passed banning "whites only" lunch counters thus:
“The principle of such legislation is that if I find your behavior ugly by my standards, moral or aesthetic, and if you prove stubborn about adopting my view of the situation, I am justified in having the state coerce you into more righteous paths. That is itself a principle of unsurpassed ugliness.”And yet think it quite alright if laws were upheld that banned such things as contraception, "obscene" works, or gay sex--because, you know, the state should be able to coerce some people, some of the time, on moral or aesthetic grounds. If those grounds were his--and not at all in some kind of "activist judge" way! (Which would, apparently, be other those other guys with their Bill of Rights goofiness.)
He is survived by the term "borked", used to mean a rejection of a candidate for some office on political grounds. There are worse legacies he could have had.