There have been few more controversial justices of the Supreme Court than Antonin Scalia. His views were seemingly adored by half of the country and reviled by the rest. Even so, you’d be hard-pressed to find any student of the law who wouldn’t acknowledge his unrivaled command of jurisprudence. A Reagan appointee, Scalia served on the Court for nearly 30 years until his death on February 13, 2016. During that time, he earned a reputation as a rock-ribbed conservative, though he’d likely describe himself more as a “textualist.”

I suppose I could go on to list some of Scalia’s notable rulings and judicial opinions, but I think I’ll leave that to the pundits. Political affiliation likely determines the view most people have of him, but to merely look at his career through a partisan lens is to do a grave injustice to one of the finest legal minds ever to pass the bar.

I’m not sure if I have the words to truly express the gravity of this loss to the Court and to the study of law in general. If politicians like Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan are the face of modern conservatism, Scalia was the mind. A constant force for a strict interpretation of the Constitution and a fervent check on government overreach, it is difficult to picture anyone taking his place. Even when he was in the minority, which he often was, Scalia’s opinions were always incredibly well-written and knowledgeable. He was a force to be reckoned with by any lawyer arguing before the Court, often lacerating them with his notorious caustic wit and grasp of legal history. It was in Scalia’s writings that conservative jurists found a voice and rallying point. He stood as an anchor for those jurists who still believe in the words of our Founders, who believe that the Constitution itself should exist above the vicissitudes of politics—a living document, to be sure, but a stable and strong one. With him gone, someone new will have to take on the mantle of conservative legal thought. It’s hard to imagine who that could be.