Scalia believes in crap called "Original Intent," which, to the layperson's eyes, can only appear to be the position of a fundamentalist in a sort of religious war. (Scalia, being a devout Catholic, probably doesn't recognize the similarity between the Reformation (look to the Bible, not the Church) and his own philosophy of law).
Original Intent means a person looks back to the writings of that day, and it tries to have its practitioner imagine what the people who drafted the early laws of this Country were thinking (what they "intended") .
Scalia might have had the time to read most, if not all, of the different things James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and others, read, but that is not likely, since a lot of it is garbage now (Have you ever tried Francis Bacon? It was revolutionary... then.), and, I know in Thomas Jefferson's case, we don't know what he read before 1770, nor do I think Scalia has read much of the massive number of architectural and horticultural work popular back then, which we also know Jefferson was familiar with. Again, the Science of the day was pretty low, and a lot of is obviously low now.
But even if he had, his "Original Intent" garbage philosophy does _not_ allow for the obvious, that each person can see a different intent. Setting yourself out as an expoert on what people were thinking 200+ years ago, when we only have a vague understanding of what they were doing, seems the height of folly.
Antonin Scalia stopped the recount, constantly referring to the "intent of the voter." The intent of the voter is not necessarily what the ballot says, but what the voter intended.
Antonin Scalia believes in judging the Constition based on the "intent of the founders." The "Original Intent" of the Founders is not necessarily what the Constitution says, but what the Founders intended.