On the contrary, I think he's exactly as conservative as he claims to be, which is in fact less conservative than Thomas. For example, Thomas is supposedly more willing to ignore the tradition of stare decisis than Scalia is; which in English, means that Scalia places more emphasis on respecting prior court decisions, even when they violate his own conservative principles. Thomas is more willing to overturn past wrong decisions.
English law was common law. For those unfamiliar with the term, common law is court-made law. Most American law is common law....it develops through court decisions, each case building on the last by incorporating rules set out in prior decisions. It is in this context that stare decisis developed and becomes necessary to the development of the law. It allows the law to develop and gives it predictability...so people know what the law is
By contrast, continental Europe has more codified law...law that is set out in codes rather than developed through court decisions.
The US Constitution is like a legal code. You don't need stare decisis in most areas of Constitutional law. Where the ruling from a prior court decision conflicts with the written Constitution, the written Constitution must take precedence.
Scalia used to recognize and acknowledge this...now he readily acknowleges that he will follow bad lines of law simply because a prior Court issued it...that I do not understand. Yes, Scalia is willing to follow stare decisis even when doing so violates his own conservative principles (which is right)...apparently also when doing so violates the terms of the Constitution (which is most definitely not right)
"even when they violate his own conservative principles."
Worth repeating.