Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice

by Antonin Scalia, Kevin A. Ring (Editor)

Brilliant. Colorful. Visionary. Tenacious. Witty. Since his appointment to the Supreme Court in 1986, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has been described as all of these things and for good reason. He is perhaps the best-known justice on the Supreme Court today and certainly the most controversial. Yet most Americans have probably not read even one of his several hundred Supreme Court opinions. In Scalia Dissents, Kevin Ring, former counsel to the U.S. Senate's Constitution Subcommittee, lets Justice Scalia speak for himself. This volume—the first of its kind— showcases the quotable justice's take on many of today's most contentious constitutional debates.

Scalia Dissents contains over a dozen of the justice's most compelling and controversial opinions. Ring also provides helpful background on the opinions and a primer on Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy.

Scalia Dissents is the perfect book for readers who love scintillating prose and penetrating insight on the most important constitutional issues of our time.

Genres: Law, Nonfiction, Politics, History, Legal, Biography

338 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

American jurist Antonin Scalia served from 1986 as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of United States.

Antonin Gregory Scalia previously served in the Administrations of Richard Milhous Nixon and Gerald Rudolph Ford, taught law at the universities of Virginia and Chicago, and served on the circuit for District of Columbia. Ronald Wilson Reagan, president, appointed him in 1986. People considered him a core member of the conservative wing; he vigorously advances textualism in statute and originalism in constitutional interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin...

Reviews

[Karen A. Wyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

This collection of opinions written by the late Justice Scalia will be of greatest interest to, and most easily understood by, lawyers; but the introductions to each section will assist lay readers, and the editor’s enlarged selections of pithy excerpts, presented along the margins, will be entertaining even to those who find the underlying subject matter still murky. It was not simply – or even primarily -- to illustrate Scalia’s judicial philosophy that the editor assembled these opinions, but to share Scalia’s incomparable gifts as a writer and, indeed, a satirist. But given Scalia’s importance in the continuing development of constitutional law, I urge lay readers to read more than the passages the editor has highlighted. One inducement: given the limitations of margin space, several of the best bits can only be found by reading the main text.

For those unfamiliar either with constitutional interpretation or with Scalia’s views, I include this attempt at a summary of the latter. Scalia insisted that the Court’s role, as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, is to apply that founding document’s text; that ambiguities must not be invented to avoid the apparent meaning of the text; and that any genuine questions about the meaning of the text must be resolved based on how those who wrote and ratified the Constitution would have interpreted the language in question. Whether in rebutting strained interpretations or in resolving actual ambiguity, Scalia stressed the underlying structure of our Constitution, which granted limited, specified powers to the federal government. Any power not so placed within the federal sphere remains with, in the words of the Tenth Amendment, “the States . . . or . . . the people.” Societal changes that make existing state or federal statutes unduly anachronistic must be addressed by action of elected legislators, not unelected judges stretching the Constitution to fit their views of what is enlightened. And if the American people become discontented with the Constitution as written, they may use its own procedures to amend it.

Scalia may not have been perfectly consistent in adhering to and applying his judicial philosophy; but I would like anyone to show me, with evidence, another 20th century Justice who comes closer to that ideal. And I issue this challenge despite the competitive advantage possessed by inherently more flexible philosophies like “the living Constitution,” which could arguably be summarized as “the Constitution means whatever our contemporary values require it to mean.”

The material is, for the most part, presented with something close to neutrality as to whether Scalia’s views on the U.S. Constitution are correct. The epilogue puts aside this restriction; and I can easily imagine (though I myself would not write) a less utopian description of what our country would look like if his views were to prevail.

Published some years before Scalia’s death, this collection does not include some opinions and some updates that it would otherwise. I, and I believe many others, would like to see a new edition to remedy these omissions.

I am myself closer to Scalia’s views than to those of, say, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan. I believe, however, that many who agree with the latter will, reading this volume, come away with a sense of the sad loss the country has suffered with Justice Scalia’s death, and how greatly we would benefit from the appointment of more Justices with his intelligence, eloquence, persistence, and courage.

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this book was written by Antonin Scalia but in fact only the inserted section of the dissent is written by Scalia the story is actually written by Kevin A Ring. The book is his narrative about Scalia’s witty words in his dissents. The book provides a brief summary of Scalia’s life. He was born in Trenton New Jersey. Graduated from Georgetown University obtained his law degree from Harvard Law School. He worked for six years in private practice in Cleveland then was a professor of law at University of Chicago. He was appointed Assistant Attorney General under Nixon and Ford. In 1982 President Reagan appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC circuit. In 1986 President Ronald Reagan appointed Scalia to the Supreme Court. Scalia was the first Italian-American Justice and is a devote Catholic. The book was promoted to be about Scalia’s witty and scathing writing but I feel I learned more about Scalia the Justice. In the book Scalia explains his advocacy of textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in Constitutional interpretation. He says he uses these rules of interpretation in every case as a guide to his decisions. He says he is a strong defender of the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Ring stated that Scalia gets more laughs during oral arguments and any other justice. Scalia states he has obtained dictionaries from the 1770 so he can better understand what the words meant to the people who ratified the Bill or Rights and the Constitution. He also obtains dictionaries from the time constitutional amendments were made as he stated the interpretation must be based on the mean of the words at the time of ratification. Scalia opposes the idea of a living constitution or the powers of the judiciary to modify the meaning to adapt to changing times. Scalia has voted to strike down laws on abortion, environmental protection, civil rights, affirmative action, race and gender discrimination. He vigorously defends the first amendment and the fourth amendment and the death penalty. After reading this book I feel I understand Scalia better and how he interprets the Constitution. I read this book as an audio book downloaded from Audible. Wyntner Woody did a good job narrating the book.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

For admirers of Justice Scalia like myself, this is enjoyable reading while also invoking frustration that he has often been in the minority of opinions. The author of this book is of course a fan of Scalia, but open minded folks who disagree with Scalia can get a better feel of his logic and perspective in his jurisprudence by reading it. I would say a reader needs to have some knowledge of the recent court to fully appreciate this book. Something like First Among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life which I read a few years ago gives a feel to how the court operates. After an introduction to Scalia's philosophy of originalism, topics are divided by chapters. Each chapter introduces the issue and Scalia's general approach to it on the court, then gives a few cases pertaining to the issue. Each case is summarized so the reader knows what Scalia is reacting to. Often he is in the minority and is breaking down the majority decision. His wit and wisdom came through for me in these cases the author picked. This is especially so now a few years later because it can be seen that he was often right in his prognostications about how a decision would affect society in the future.

[Dominic · Rating 3 out of 5]

It might be a good read for a non-lawyer. Somewhat elementary and rudimentary for a lawyer. In advance of requesting this book for a gift, I thought Justice Scalia had participated in some way in the writing of this book. This thought was incorrect. This book basically just highlights Justice Scalia's positions on certain areas of law by summarizing and quoting from Justice Scalia's written opinions and dissents.

[Joel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a compilation of some of the most brilliant dissents (as well as some concurring opinions) by the late, great Supreme Justice Antonin Scalia, organized by topic (e.g. Separation of Powers, Race, Abortion, Gender Equality, etc.).

Each chapter has a short introduction explaining the main issues and the important precedent cases relating to that topic. Each opinion is also prefaced by a page or two explaining the background of the case and summarizing Justice Scalia's main arguments.

I found these explanatory segments quite useful. Initially, I thought these injections by the editor would detract from the book, especially since I found the introductory chapter by the editor somewhat stilted. But in the body of the book, the editorializing is limited to these short explanatory segments, which prove quite useful.

Scalia's opinions themselves are absolutely brilliant and are often entertaining to read. His criticism can be stinging and colourful. Some of the more memorable cases are Morrison v Olson, which is pertinent to what's playing out in the news again today (Scalia's warnings are almost prophetic); City of Richmond v Croson and US v Virginia, which are also extremely pertinent to issues that are in the news today; and Casey, in which he absolutely butchers the majority.

Even if you can't get ahold of this book, I would urge you to find those opinions online and read them - they will absolutely open your eyes to how much of what the Supreme Court does is not based on the rule of law, but the personal politics of activist judges. Of course, critics will level this same criticism against Scalia himself, but it is worth reading his opinions to see how his judicial philosophy stood in such forceful opposition to the expedient reading of the Constitution of his peers.

Overall, a very enlightening and entertaining read.

[Brian Olson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I liked this book, but it made me mad. Why don't people listen to Scalia? How can our Supreme Court be so wrong? Why do they persist in usurping power and misinterpreting the Constitution to read however they like? If we had nine Scalias on the court, then this would be a freer, fairer, more just country. Alas!

[Mike Lorenzetti · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought provoking read. The thread running through Scalia's opinions on several topics is his originalist/textualist approach. The constitution (or any statute for that matter) means just what it meant when read by any reasonable person at the time it was written -- no more, no less). It is not a living document that changes with he times.

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you enjoy constitutional law, a great little book highlighting some of Scalia's best opinions. If you don't enjoy constitutional law...definitely not for you.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book because I wanted to see what the "Law of the Land" really says about the big issues....the death penalty, abortion, affirmative action, etc. I was also really hoping to read insight on gun control, but unfortunately, this book didn't even mention the subject. In light of what happened recently with the CT shooting, it is something that is so timely that it should be added in the next edition. Scalia is fascinating because his basis for decisions on the Supreme Court rest solely on 1)what is expressly written in the Constitution and 2.(if the Constitution doesn't mention the issue) that which has established a consistent message since the days the Constitution was written.
He says it is not the job of the Supreme Court to create laws (that's up to the legislature) and it is not the Court's job to formulate their decisions based on the Constitution's "intent" which causes opinion to enter the decision making process (and, opinion, is not what should enter a decision- just the interpretation of the law). He believes you have to interpret the laws exactly how they are written in the Constitution, not based on your opinion. This is the best way, he believes, to have an unbiased Court. He seems to be the only Justice that has a specific criteria to judge cases. It creates consistency in his rulings and completely takes opinion and politics out of the decision. The reason I gave it 3 rather than 5 stars is that he is so incredibly intelligent that I can barely follow his reasoning. It's like reading a foreign language- I catch every third word to try to figure out what he is saying. If you have a legal background, the opinions might be more easy to read, but I appreciated the incredible organization and logic he uses to formulate his decisions. It's like reading a puzzle. He tries to explain every angle. If anything, it has helped me to understand what my "opinion" is vs. what the Constitution really says.

[Vicky Hunt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is good book, and a great idea, to make law and judicial opinions more readily accessible for the average American. I got the audible book and was able to gain a good view of Scalia's often common sense way of bringing constitutional law down to the lowest common denominator. And, there is a biting sense of humor to some of his rulings.

On his opinion of Affirmative Action he has been quoted as saying:
"To pursue the concept of racial entitlement – even for the most admirable and benign of purposes – is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American." Note that Scalia himself was the first American of Italian origin on the Supreme Court.

On the subject of Gay marriage, he sees current court decisions as a violation of the constitution, pointing out that a distinct amendment needed to have been ratified by the legislative branch of government for that right to have been newly given, since it was indeed a new right and was previously illegal. He pointed to the example of women's suffrage, where a separate amendment was passed for women (and blacks) to be given the right to vote. This was not done in the case of gay marriage, but instead, judges passed in essence a new law, by reinterpreting the constitution by public opinion. So, we have laws passed by the power of the executive and judicial branches now, instead of just the legislative branch.

On many other subjects, Scalia's conservative view of the law has been clear, though his decisions are not always popular with those on either side of the aisle, politically. Clearly, much of the president who appointed him to office remains in our judicial system, in this Reagan appointee.

[Shaun · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author does a good job selecting some of Justice Scalia's dissents on, with only a few exceptions, hot-button social issues. We learn about his views on abortion, gay marriage, religion, free speech, and the like. It is hard to fault the author for homing in on these divisive subjects, since these seem to engender some (but by no means all) of Scalia's most incisive opinions.

I take away stars because of this book's unabashed lack of neutrality. The epilogue is an especially egregious paean to all things Scalia. With such an obviously biased narrator, the reader is left to fend for herself to judge the validity of Scalia's views, which is rather difficult given the scant treatment of the majority opinions.

For these reasons, I would recommend this book to two groups of people. First, those individuals outside the legal community who are simply curious about hearing one side in some of the more interesting legal debates of our times. Such readers should hesitate to claim that they have formed any sort of informed opinion after finishing this book. Second, I would recommend this book to legal scholars who have previously read some or all of the relevant majority opinions, and wish to refresh themselves on Scalia's philosophy. The dissents presented herein contain common themes that are sure to trigger memories of 1L constitutional law and the like. Of course, this latter class of reader could probably log onto Lexis and simply read the dissents for herself.

[Elazar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Brilliant writing and cool sense of humor. The dissents are interesting but way too long for my taste.

[Larry · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am not a lawyer (but I used to date one); though it dealt with some concepts that I don't understand completely (like having standing), it was not too hard to grasp the general arguments. I found myself agreeing with Scalia 80% of the time (or more), but even when I disagreed, I understood his reasoning, as it is fairly consistent (which can't be said of the court in general, as pointed out more than once). A very good read if you're interested in "big" issues - but get it from the library. I'm not sure the commentary from the editor/author merits a $50 price tag when 95% of the book is freely available online. Made me want to pay more attention to all of the Supreme Court decisions/dissents.

[Brent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Justice Scalia's ability to dispense with nonsense (likely aided by the experience of raising his 9 children) and produce an enjoyable, convincing judicial opinion based on the Constitution cause me to rate him the best ever Supreme Court justice. He was a national treasure. This is a collection of judicial opinions in which he usually disagreed with most other justices on the Court. They would have done better to agree with him. The book includes good background to the cases and comments from the editor.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you love law, this is a great book. Scalia was one of the most thoughtful and skilled writers on the high court. The book is a focus on key opinions and dissents, not an editorial on his work. If you do not like to read legal writing, this is not for you. It’s not an opinion piece.

Whether you agreed with him or not, his process was deliberate and measured. His focus on constitutional review was critical to the way the court should operate. After reading this I am more convinced that he was less political than many who have emotional response to his work believe.

[Matthew Dambro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clearly he was the brightest and best Justice to have graced the Supreme Court in modern times. His originalist reading of the Constitution was a beacon to conservatives everywhere. Would that he had been in the majority more often. His language was clear and easily understood even by laymen. His wit and sharp rebukes for his colleagues are a sheer joy to read. He cut with a rapier through the left wing cant and nonsense that passes for Supreme Court decisions. He will be missed.

[Maddie Watts · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good read, but a LONG one. Justice Scalia was a fantastic writer, but his eloquent dissents and concurrences made for hefty and dense chapters. I would absolutely recommend this book to anyone interested in the law and Scalia's judicial philosophy, but definitely sprinkle in some fun books while you read!

[Timothy Kauphusman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting insight into some historically significant United States Supreme Court cases.

[Joshua Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

The short list of best all time writers.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tough read very cerebral

[L · Rating 4 out of 5]

At times funny, at times outrageous, at times technical and lawyerly, but always brilliantly delivered.

[Todd · Rating 4 out of 5]

I good insight to Scalia's thought processes. He is clearly an intellectual beyond the scope of most average Americans and I agree with most of his views but take some issue with his view that The Constitution, written in 1787, when our country accepted slavery and the subjugation of women as normal, is cast in stone and should in no way evolve with society. I do agree that there is no place for bench legislation, but surely our society is intelligent enough to find a way to preserve morality and decency for our current world without the left/right division that is destroying the foundation of this country.

[Daniel Sperry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scalia's approach to court rulings is focused on interpreting the written law and customs.
He believed that the Supreme Court shouldn't create new rights and instead should only rule over the ones already defined in the U.S. constitution.

According to him, the court has overreached its mandate in the past (regarding, for instance, abortion, death penalty, gay marriage) and, in doing so, it put itself in the limelight of political controversy.
In his view, the forum for these decisions is the U.S. Congress, through legislation, and the Supreme Court should restrict itself to interpreting the law.

[Bev · Rating 5 out of 5]

While I usually do not agree with Scalia politically, I walked away from this book respecting Scalia. I was drawn to this book because it was by Scalia himself. Going through each of the cases he highlighted...even if I disagreed with his decision......I appreciated the process, time, effort, painstaking research he employs when decisions are rendered.

[Roger Rohweder · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wish I could magically have Scalia's gift of speech!An acquaintance had been selected to clerk for him, and then he passed away. What a terrible loss for her. And what a loss to the court, and our nation. A brilliant, gifted man. You can disagree with his decisions, but one cannot help but be impressed with his debate skills.

[Lo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Politics aside; this dude can write! Write like whoa. "Wittiest" is not nearly the right word. I would dare to say down right CHEEKY and I think this man is a political nightmare. But damn, he can write and in a world STARVED for sexy writing, I'll take it where I can get it.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

Scalia Dissents is a well curated sample of Scalia's opinions. It lets Scalia do most of the talking, but provides just enough editorial input to give the context for understanding Scalia's approach. It's a worthwhile, thought provoking read.

[Gordon Larsen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun and relatively easy read (if you're a nerd) through some of Scalia's greatest hits, up until about ten years ago. Also a decent starting point for understanding some of the most contentious social and legal issues of the past 50 years. I'm ashamed I waited to read it until after his passing.

[Jim Goldsmith]

This is a great synopsis of Antonin Scalia's judicial philosophy, as conveyed through some his his most compelling and entertaining legal opinions.

[Kaitan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not an easy book to read, but it gives excellent insight and an interesting perspective into some of the today's biggest issues like affirmative action, abortion, and golf.