I always knew

Scalia was a dick.

And this description of "originalism" as a theory of Constitutional interpretation is, as far as I can tell, pretty much right on:

Scalia is considered the Court's leading proponent of "originalism." This is a legal philosophy whereby the proponent attempts to locate the most dickish elements of the founding fathers' political views, magnify them, and disingenuously use them as a pretext for perpetuating dickish views. In other words, the phrase "I am an originalist," is synonymous with "I am a racist, but I'm too much of a pussy to just come out and say it because I went to college." It's the legal philsophy the audience on Jerry Springer would have if they went to Harvard or Yale law schools.
One can analyze originalism through legal scholarship, but that would involve a lot of latin phrases like habeas this and amicus that. You can also look at it like this: any time a case involves a black person, or a legal issue that disproportionately affects black people, Scalia, using his "originialism," will always decide against the black person. Likewise with gay people, women, or any case in which an individual is pitted against a corporation. You could say that such a person is a bigot. You could also say that he's an "originialist.”
Scalia and other "originalists" are terrified by the idea of change. They are especially horrified by the realization that each successive generation hates blacks and gay people less and less. Realizing the consequences of this, and enraged by increasingly being made to look like society's embarrassing old uncles, they have devised a legal philosophy to enshrine their bigotry into law so it can live on even after the "originalists" have gone.