Justice Antonin Scalia, 1936-2016.

Two years ago today, the legal world was jolted with shocking news from Texas: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 79, died in his sleep at a hunting ranch.

With his outsized influence and personality, it took 14 months of partisan delay and wrangling to replace Scalia. His successor Neil Gorsuch made it clear from day one that he would carry on Scalia's originalist and textualist views—doctrines that both liberals and conservatives agree altered the way the court looked at statutes and the Constitution.

“Thanks to Scalia's disruption, the Supreme Court may never be the same,” said Richard Hasen, author of “The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption,” in a column Tuesday in The Washington Post. President Donald Trump also honored Scalia's memory, in a way, by nominating like-minded appeals court and district court judges whose influence will be felt for decades.

Here is how Scalia admirers, critics and clerks are thinking about Scalia and his legacy, two years later:

Kannon Shanmugam.

Kannon Shanmugam, former Scalia clerk and head of Williams & Connolly's Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice: “Even two years on from his death, Justice Scalia remains a powerful influence on the court. His legacy lives on in the court's approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation. While there are differences in approach among the court's members, the court largely plays on the playing field that Justice Scalia established.”

Elizabeth Wydra.

Elizabeth Wydra, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center: “On the one hand, Justice Scalia left behind a number of former clerks—including Kannon Shanmugam, Lawrence Lessig and others—whose work and temperament continue to reflect with great distinction on the legal profession. On the other hand, Justice Scalia's replacement, Justice Gorsuch, is poised to prolong the least defensible aspects of Scalia's legacy for another generation, including skepticism toward claims made by marginalized groups and sympathy for business interests—neither of which is moored in the text and history of the Constitution.”