Scalia is strict, but he sometimes hollows the spirit of the Constitution with his strict theory of textual interpretation. He’s given too much leeway to legislative, police and regulatory expansion of powers.
The Constitution is not like legislative law. It's generally very broad with some certain specifics and of course generally much older with terms that were used 200+ years ago. I agree with Judge Bork that Constitutional interpretation requires first the text itself, and second, if there's any question about it, research original intent.
Legislative law is generally more specific and more recent and might require less original intent analysis if the text is clear.
The liberals do neither - they invent interpretations ("judicial activism") that is neither in the text or even close to an honest evaluation of original intent because liberals have an agenda and want to bend the law to meet their objective.
Scalia is a bulwark against judicial activism. If he's against an honest evaluation of original understanding of the Constitution where needed, that is unfortunate.