What do you think?
Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution
An Instant
New York Times
Bestseller
From an award-winning journalist, the authoritative—and explosive—inside story of Justice Samuel Alito and his powerful role in shaping the Supreme Court.
“Riveting.” —Mike Lee, U.S. Senator
Justice Samuel Alito, the unflinching author of the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, is so influential that many now refer to the “Alito Court.” But his powerful role, long overlooked, has aroused the ire of activists outraged by the emergence of a cohesive conservative majority on the court.
In this first comprehensive study of Alito, Mollie Hemingway explains how his common sense and prosecutorial experience, combined with fearless intellectual rigor, have shaped the man and the jurist. Through the lens of Alito’s judicial career, Hemingway provides a fresh perspective on the political, social, and legal battles that have unsettled the Supreme Court and the nation.
From menacing mobs encamped outside the justices’ homes to senators bellowing violent threats on the steps of the court itself, Alito offers a captivating insider account of the Supreme Court under unprecedented attack in a polarized age.
Few would have predicted that the modest and reserved judge who joined the high court with little fanfare two decades ago would lead the originalists to their astonishing ascendancy, but Hemingway’s compelling portrait reveals an intellect and character that make such leadership seem inevitable.
From an award-winning journalist, the authoritative—and explosive—inside story of Justice Samuel Alito and his powerful role in shaping the Supreme Court.
“Riveting.” —Mike Lee, U.S. Senator
Justice Samuel Alito, the unflinching author of the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, is so influential that many now refer to the “Alito Court.” But his powerful role, long overlooked, has aroused the ire of activists outraged by the emergence of a cohesive conservative majority on the court.
In this first comprehensive study of Alito, Mollie Hemingway explains how his common sense and prosecutorial experience, combined with fearless intellectual rigor, have shaped the man and the jurist. Through the lens of Alito’s judicial career, Hemingway provides a fresh perspective on the political, social, and legal battles that have unsettled the Supreme Court and the nation.
From menacing mobs encamped outside the justices’ homes to senators bellowing violent threats on the steps of the court itself, Alito offers a captivating insider account of the Supreme Court under unprecedented attack in a polarized age.
Few would have predicted that the modest and reserved judge who joined the high court with little fanfare two decades ago would lead the originalists to their astonishing ascendancy, but Hemingway’s compelling portrait reveals an intellect and character that make such leadership seem inevitable.
326 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 21, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
Hemingway makes clear where she is writing from – she is clearly no friend of Democrats and does not have many kind words for Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents (I'm not sure I agree entirely with her comments on Sotomayor J, for example). Nevertheless, with this caveat in mind, this book makes for a good read for understanding Justice Samuel Alito and his jurisprudence.
Chapter 1 is titled "Though the Heavens Fall", a reference to Lord Mansfield's judgment in R v John Wilkes, Esq, a 1770 controversial seditious libel case where crowds were packed into the courtroom and outside the courthouse. Lord Mansfield wrote: "The constitution does not allow reasons of State to influence our judgments: God forbid it should! We must not regard political consequences; how formidable soever they might be: if rebellion was the certain consequence, we are bound to say "fiat justitia, ruat caelum."" Hemingway briefly sketches recent events where the public has been riled up over the constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS"), from protesting in an effort to affect the court's decision (with the help of politicians like Chuck Schumer), to threatening to assassinate Supreme Court Justices and even attempting to do so to one Justice in the majority of Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization following the leak of the draft decision. The Dobbs decision was written by Alito J, and Hemingway writes: "In spite of political threats to the legitimacy of the Court—accompanied by very real threats to the justices' own lives—Alito had quietly and consistently delivered justice while also anchoring the team through its most controversial decision in half a century. The heavens had fallen, and Alito had done his duty, unawed."
With that background, Chapter 2 covers Alito's background, schooling years, and his experience after graduation from Yale Law School clerking, spending time at the US attorney's office, Solicitor General's Office, being appointed US attorney, followed by being nominated and confirmed to the Third Circuit. Chapter 3 covers the lead-up to his nomination and confirmation to SCOTUS. Chapter 4 covers Alito J's earlier cases on the bench, and his interactions and disagreements with his colleagues. For example, in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.. Ginsburg J dissented and, in her reading of her dissent from the bench, called for Congress to pass legislation to correct the court's decision. After the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was passed, Ginsburg J hung a copy in her office, while Hemingway opined that it was a "validation" of the Ledbetter majority's ruling: "If elected representatives wanted the law to say something different from what it actually said, it was in their power to change the law." In another example, Alito J's plurality opinion in Hein v Freedom from Religious Foundation kept in place a past decision from 1968, which Scalia and Thomas JJ wanted to overturn. Scalia J (joined by Thomas J) thus wrote a "biting concurrence". Hemingway also covers the deaths of Ginsburg and Scalia JJ in this chapter and the addition of the newest SCOTUS justices leading up to Jackson J (following Breyer J's retirement).
Chapter 5 takes a more political tone, discussing the controversies that SCOTUS has found itself in recently, such as the media's reporting on Thomas J's gifts and Alito J's wife hanging an upside-down US flag which the media deemed a sign of support for Trump. Hemingway defends the justices, arguing that the media was biased in reporting on Thomas J in such a scandalous manner while ignoring similar trips made by Ginsburg and Sotomayor JJ or similar gifts given to Jackson J, and reproducing Alito J's public responses concerning the flags his wife hangs. I found this chapter to be the toughest for me to get through, perhaps because I came to this book keen to learn more about Alito J's jurisprudence and career and not for the political moves that are played with the SCOTUS justices as chess pieces.
Chapters 6-7 cover more of Alito J's jurisprudence, going into his originalism and how he tempers it with his focus also on the "immediate practical consequences" – a factor which other originalist justices may not place that much weight on. This affects how Alito J treats precedent cases which he believes were flawed decisions. For example, in American legion v American Humanist Association, SCOTUS was presented an opportunity to overturn the test in Lemon v Kurtzman which allowed for government action as long as it is for a "secular purpose", the "primary effect [does not] inhibit or advance religion" and "it [does not] cause an excessive entanglement with religion". Alito J wrote the majority opinion, where he criticised the Lemon test for lacking foundation in the text and history of the Constitution and its unworkability, but did not abolish the test. In a separate opinion, Thomas and Gorsuch JJ criticised Alito J for not doing so.
Another observation I found interesting is how Alito J seems to favour a more limited right to free speech compared to his colleagues. For example, in Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association, the question before SCOTUS was whether a California law restricting sales of violent video games to minors was constitutional. Scalia J, writing for the majority, opined that it has never been understood that the freedom of speech did not include portrayals of violence, analogising violent video games to reading about violence in a book. Alito J, in a concurring opinion, criticised Scalia J for too quickly dismissing the possibility that the experience of playing video games is fundamentally different from reading about violence in a book – "Today's most advanced video games create realistic alternative worlds in which millions of players immerse themselves for hours on end", and a book is less vividly interactive to the reader compared to a video game to the player. In another case where the Westboro Baptist Church protested at the funeral of a deceased Marine (Snyder v Phelps), SCOTUS ruled 8-1 that the protest was protected by the First Amendment. Alito J, the sole dissenter, noted the contents of the Westboro church's protest and held that "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case". This, combined with Alito's previous stating of his views (when he was applying for a job with the Reagan administration) that government has a role in "protecting traditional values", has led some academics to describe Alito J as "Burkean" in his recognition that the Constitution provides the government some space to preserve values, and his being "quite institutionally pragmatic." An interesting observation seemingly setting Alito J apart from other originalists, and one which I wonder may be a product of the Justice's time in government and prosecution, having seen the limitations governments and law enforcement have to deal with.
Chapter 7 covers the lead-up to and the Dobbs decision, which I do not think I can accurately summarise without leaving out important information and context. I simply note that I preferred the portions of this chapter discussing the jurisprudence and law undergirding the Dobbs advocates' arguments and decision, compared to the portions discussing how political actors reacted in the lead-up to the arguments, following the leak, and following the decision.
Overall, I think Hemingway's book makes for a good read for an overview of Alito as a person, tracing his life through his many careers to its current point, as well as his jurisprudence. I definitely left this book knowing more about the justice and appreciating him and his thought more than when I first picked it up.
Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution releases on 21 April 2026. I am grateful to Netgalley for an advance reader copy.
Chapter 1 is titled "Though the Heavens Fall", a reference to Lord Mansfield's judgment in R v John Wilkes, Esq, a 1770 controversial seditious libel case where crowds were packed into the courtroom and outside the courthouse. Lord Mansfield wrote: "The constitution does not allow reasons of State to influence our judgments: God forbid it should! We must not regard political consequences; how formidable soever they might be: if rebellion was the certain consequence, we are bound to say "fiat justitia, ruat caelum."" Hemingway briefly sketches recent events where the public has been riled up over the constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS"), from protesting in an effort to affect the court's decision (with the help of politicians like Chuck Schumer), to threatening to assassinate Supreme Court Justices and even attempting to do so to one Justice in the majority of Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization following the leak of the draft decision. The Dobbs decision was written by Alito J, and Hemingway writes: "In spite of political threats to the legitimacy of the Court—accompanied by very real threats to the justices' own lives—Alito had quietly and consistently delivered justice while also anchoring the team through its most controversial decision in half a century. The heavens had fallen, and Alito had done his duty, unawed."
With that background, Chapter 2 covers Alito's background, schooling years, and his experience after graduation from Yale Law School clerking, spending time at the US attorney's office, Solicitor General's Office, being appointed US attorney, followed by being nominated and confirmed to the Third Circuit. Chapter 3 covers the lead-up to his nomination and confirmation to SCOTUS. Chapter 4 covers Alito J's earlier cases on the bench, and his interactions and disagreements with his colleagues. For example, in Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.. Ginsburg J dissented and, in her reading of her dissent from the bench, called for Congress to pass legislation to correct the court's decision. After the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was passed, Ginsburg J hung a copy in her office, while Hemingway opined that it was a "validation" of the Ledbetter majority's ruling: "If elected representatives wanted the law to say something different from what it actually said, it was in their power to change the law." In another example, Alito J's plurality opinion in Hein v Freedom from Religious Foundation kept in place a past decision from 1968, which Scalia and Thomas JJ wanted to overturn. Scalia J (joined by Thomas J) thus wrote a "biting concurrence". Hemingway also covers the deaths of Ginsburg and Scalia JJ in this chapter and the addition of the newest SCOTUS justices leading up to Jackson J (following Breyer J's retirement).
Chapter 5 takes a more political tone, discussing the controversies that SCOTUS has found itself in recently, such as the media's reporting on Thomas J's gifts and Alito J's wife hanging an upside-down US flag which the media deemed a sign of support for Trump. Hemingway defends the justices, arguing that the media was biased in reporting on Thomas J in such a scandalous manner while ignoring similar trips made by Ginsburg and Sotomayor JJ or similar gifts given to Jackson J, and reproducing Alito J's public responses concerning the flags his wife hangs. I found this chapter to be the toughest for me to get through, perhaps because I came to this book keen to learn more about Alito J's jurisprudence and career and not for the political moves that are played with the SCOTUS justices as chess pieces.
Chapters 6-7 cover more of Alito J's jurisprudence, going into his originalism and how he tempers it with his focus also on the "immediate practical consequences" – a factor which other originalist justices may not place that much weight on. This affects how Alito J treats precedent cases which he believes were flawed decisions. For example, in American legion v American Humanist Association, SCOTUS was presented an opportunity to overturn the test in Lemon v Kurtzman which allowed for government action as long as it is for a "secular purpose", the "primary effect [does not] inhibit or advance religion" and "it [does not] cause an excessive entanglement with religion". Alito J wrote the majority opinion, where he criticised the Lemon test for lacking foundation in the text and history of the Constitution and its unworkability, but did not abolish the test. In a separate opinion, Thomas and Gorsuch JJ criticised Alito J for not doing so.
Another observation I found interesting is how Alito J seems to favour a more limited right to free speech compared to his colleagues. For example, in Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association, the question before SCOTUS was whether a California law restricting sales of violent video games to minors was constitutional. Scalia J, writing for the majority, opined that it has never been understood that the freedom of speech did not include portrayals of violence, analogising violent video games to reading about violence in a book. Alito J, in a concurring opinion, criticised Scalia J for too quickly dismissing the possibility that the experience of playing video games is fundamentally different from reading about violence in a book – "Today's most advanced video games create realistic alternative worlds in which millions of players immerse themselves for hours on end", and a book is less vividly interactive to the reader compared to a video game to the player. In another case where the Westboro Baptist Church protested at the funeral of a deceased Marine (Snyder v Phelps), SCOTUS ruled 8-1 that the protest was protected by the First Amendment. Alito J, the sole dissenter, noted the contents of the Westboro church's protest and held that "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case". This, combined with Alito's previous stating of his views (when he was applying for a job with the Reagan administration) that government has a role in "protecting traditional values", has led some academics to describe Alito J as "Burkean" in his recognition that the Constitution provides the government some space to preserve values, and his being "quite institutionally pragmatic." An interesting observation seemingly setting Alito J apart from other originalists, and one which I wonder may be a product of the Justice's time in government and prosecution, having seen the limitations governments and law enforcement have to deal with.
Chapter 7 covers the lead-up to and the Dobbs decision, which I do not think I can accurately summarise without leaving out important information and context. I simply note that I preferred the portions of this chapter discussing the jurisprudence and law undergirding the Dobbs advocates' arguments and decision, compared to the portions discussing how political actors reacted in the lead-up to the arguments, following the leak, and following the decision.
Overall, I think Hemingway's book makes for a good read for an overview of Alito as a person, tracing his life through his many careers to its current point, as well as his jurisprudence. I definitely left this book knowing more about the justice and appreciating him and his thought more than when I first picked it up.
Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution releases on 21 April 2026. I am grateful to Netgalley for an advance reader copy.
June 5, 2026
An Open Letter to Mollie Hemingway on Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution
Dear Ms. Hemingway,
I recently finished reading Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution, and while I appreciate the depth of research and access you bring to the subject, I found myself deeply troubled by both the book's conclusions and the perspective through which they are presented. As a reader approaching the work from a liberal viewpoint, I came away feeling that the book functions less as a critical biography and more as a sustained defense of Justice Samuel Alito and his judicial philosophy.
Your book covers many important topics in Alito's career, including his upbringing, legal education, years on the federal bench, approach to constitutional interpretation, religious liberty cases, free speech disputes, and his growing influence on the Supreme Court. Yet the centerpiece of the book is undoubtedly the Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion that had existed for nearly fifty years.
You present Dobbs as a constitutional correction, a restoration of democratic decision-making, and perhaps the crowning achievement of Alito's judicial career. From my perspective, however, Dobbs represents one of the most damaging Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.
The problem is not simply that reasonable people disagree about abortion. Rather, it is that the decision removed a fundamental right that generations of women had relied upon. Since Dobbs, millions of women have found themselves living in states where abortion access has been severely restricted or effectively eliminated. Numerous studies have documented the consequences of abortion bans, including increased travel burdens, delayed medical care, and heightened risks for women facing pregnancy complications. Research has also shown that women denied wanted abortions are more likely to experience economic hardship and poorer long-term health outcomes compared with women who are able to obtain reproductive care.
What troubled me most about your treatment of Dobbs is the absence of sustained engagement with these consequences. The book spends considerable time explaining Alito's legal reasoning, but far less time examining the real-world impact of the decision on women and families. A reader unfamiliar with the issue could easily conclude that Dobbs was merely a technical constitutional dispute rather than a ruling that fundamentally altered the lives of millions of Americans.
This points to a broader concern about the book. A strong biography should challenge its subject as well as celebrate them. Yet throughout the narrative, criticism of Alito often feels minimized or dismissed. His supporters are given extensive attention, while opposing viewpoints sometimes appear only as obstacles to be rebutted rather than arguments worthy of serious consideration.
The title itself reveals the book's central assumption: that Alito "restored the Constitution." But restored it to what, exactly? The Constitution drafted in 1787 was an extraordinary political achievement for its time, yet it was also a deeply flawed document. Women could not vote. Enslaved people were denied basic human rights. Political power was concentrated overwhelmingly in the hands of white male property owners.
Indeed, the Constitution has required repeated amendment and reinterpretation to expand liberty and equality. The Reconstruction Amendments, women's suffrage, civil rights legislation, and numerous Supreme Court decisions all helped transform America into a more inclusive democracy. To suggest that constitutional legitimacy depends solely on returning to eighteenth-century understandings risks overlooking the ways in which the nation has grown by correcting the exclusions and injustices embedded in its founding institutions.
This is where I believe your book misses an opportunity. Instead of examining the tension between originalism and modern conceptions of equality, the narrative often treats Alito's methodology as self-evidently superior. Yet many Americans view constitutional interpretation differently. They believe the Constitution is not merely a historical artifact but a living framework designed to secure liberty for successive generations. Whether one agrees with that philosophy or not, it deserves fuller treatment than it receives here.
To be clear, I do not question your right to admire Justice Alito or to argue that his influence has been beneficial. Authors are entitled to perspectives. But readers also benefit when biographers wrestle honestly with the strongest arguments against their subject. In this case, I believe the book would have been stronger had it devoted greater attention to the experiences of women affected by abortion restrictions, the concerns of legal scholars who opposed Dobbs, and the broader social consequences of the Court's decision.
In the end, what I found most unsettling was not merely the book's defense of Alito, but what that defense symbolizes about our political culture. Americans increasingly consume different facts, different histories, and different interpretations of the same events. The left and the right often seem to inhabit entirely separate worlds. Books such as yours, and responses such as mine, reflect that reality.
The question facing our country is larger than any single justice or court case. If each side continues to view the other as fundamentally illegitimate, the distance between us will only grow. The divisions surrounding abortion, constitutional interpretation, and the Supreme Court are not disappearing. They are becoming deeper, more personal, and more entrenched.
Have the fractures become so deep that they cannot be repaired? I hope not. Yet after reading your book and reflecting on the debates it represents, I find myself wondering whether we are still arguing about policy—or whether we are now arguing about entirely different visions of America itself.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Liberal Reader
Dear Ms. Hemingway,
I recently finished reading Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution, and while I appreciate the depth of research and access you bring to the subject, I found myself deeply troubled by both the book's conclusions and the perspective through which they are presented. As a reader approaching the work from a liberal viewpoint, I came away feeling that the book functions less as a critical biography and more as a sustained defense of Justice Samuel Alito and his judicial philosophy.
Your book covers many important topics in Alito's career, including his upbringing, legal education, years on the federal bench, approach to constitutional interpretation, religious liberty cases, free speech disputes, and his growing influence on the Supreme Court. Yet the centerpiece of the book is undoubtedly the Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion that had existed for nearly fifty years.
You present Dobbs as a constitutional correction, a restoration of democratic decision-making, and perhaps the crowning achievement of Alito's judicial career. From my perspective, however, Dobbs represents one of the most damaging Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.
The problem is not simply that reasonable people disagree about abortion. Rather, it is that the decision removed a fundamental right that generations of women had relied upon. Since Dobbs, millions of women have found themselves living in states where abortion access has been severely restricted or effectively eliminated. Numerous studies have documented the consequences of abortion bans, including increased travel burdens, delayed medical care, and heightened risks for women facing pregnancy complications. Research has also shown that women denied wanted abortions are more likely to experience economic hardship and poorer long-term health outcomes compared with women who are able to obtain reproductive care.
What troubled me most about your treatment of Dobbs is the absence of sustained engagement with these consequences. The book spends considerable time explaining Alito's legal reasoning, but far less time examining the real-world impact of the decision on women and families. A reader unfamiliar with the issue could easily conclude that Dobbs was merely a technical constitutional dispute rather than a ruling that fundamentally altered the lives of millions of Americans.
This points to a broader concern about the book. A strong biography should challenge its subject as well as celebrate them. Yet throughout the narrative, criticism of Alito often feels minimized or dismissed. His supporters are given extensive attention, while opposing viewpoints sometimes appear only as obstacles to be rebutted rather than arguments worthy of serious consideration.
The title itself reveals the book's central assumption: that Alito "restored the Constitution." But restored it to what, exactly? The Constitution drafted in 1787 was an extraordinary political achievement for its time, yet it was also a deeply flawed document. Women could not vote. Enslaved people were denied basic human rights. Political power was concentrated overwhelmingly in the hands of white male property owners.
Indeed, the Constitution has required repeated amendment and reinterpretation to expand liberty and equality. The Reconstruction Amendments, women's suffrage, civil rights legislation, and numerous Supreme Court decisions all helped transform America into a more inclusive democracy. To suggest that constitutional legitimacy depends solely on returning to eighteenth-century understandings risks overlooking the ways in which the nation has grown by correcting the exclusions and injustices embedded in its founding institutions.
This is where I believe your book misses an opportunity. Instead of examining the tension between originalism and modern conceptions of equality, the narrative often treats Alito's methodology as self-evidently superior. Yet many Americans view constitutional interpretation differently. They believe the Constitution is not merely a historical artifact but a living framework designed to secure liberty for successive generations. Whether one agrees with that philosophy or not, it deserves fuller treatment than it receives here.
To be clear, I do not question your right to admire Justice Alito or to argue that his influence has been beneficial. Authors are entitled to perspectives. But readers also benefit when biographers wrestle honestly with the strongest arguments against their subject. In this case, I believe the book would have been stronger had it devoted greater attention to the experiences of women affected by abortion restrictions, the concerns of legal scholars who opposed Dobbs, and the broader social consequences of the Court's decision.
In the end, what I found most unsettling was not merely the book's defense of Alito, but what that defense symbolizes about our political culture. Americans increasingly consume different facts, different histories, and different interpretations of the same events. The left and the right often seem to inhabit entirely separate worlds. Books such as yours, and responses such as mine, reflect that reality.
The question facing our country is larger than any single justice or court case. If each side continues to view the other as fundamentally illegitimate, the distance between us will only grow. The divisions surrounding abortion, constitutional interpretation, and the Supreme Court are not disappearing. They are becoming deeper, more personal, and more entrenched.
Have the fractures become so deep that they cannot be repaired? I hope not. Yet after reading your book and reflecting on the debates it represents, I find myself wondering whether we are still arguing about policy—or whether we are now arguing about entirely different visions of America itself.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Liberal Reader
May 6, 2026
Really good book about a great Justice of the Supreme Court.
June 6, 2026
An excellent read and explanation of how the Court works, including the path to becoming a Justice.
Justice Alito is venerated for his courage, humility, precision, and humanity. He represents the best of American statesmen.
Another facet of this book is its unambiguous message that a person cannot hate the Left (politicians, (paid) protesters, the media, and the academy) enough. Hemingway gives an inside and overarching view of the insidious plots by the Left to achieve political ends through violence, real or threatened, lies, and intentional negligence.
For all those weepy, effeminate, fence-sitters who bemoan the rise of President Trump, it would be a good lesson to read this book and imagine the world we would be in had he not been in office to appoint conservatives to the highest Court.
Great book and great writing style.
Justice Alito is venerated for his courage, humility, precision, and humanity. He represents the best of American statesmen.
Another facet of this book is its unambiguous message that a person cannot hate the Left (politicians, (paid) protesters, the media, and the academy) enough. Hemingway gives an inside and overarching view of the insidious plots by the Left to achieve political ends through violence, real or threatened, lies, and intentional negligence.
For all those weepy, effeminate, fence-sitters who bemoan the rise of President Trump, it would be a good lesson to read this book and imagine the world we would be in had he not been in office to appoint conservatives to the highest Court.
Great book and great writing style.
July 22, 2026
I love reading biographies. I love reading about real people and real circumstances doing real things. It’s one of the reasons why fiction is a struggle for me because while the story may be beautiful, it’s not reality. Everything was created to serve a purpose to move the story along. This biography was no different. It’s not about a perfect man who lived a perfect life. It was about a man who loves truth and used his intellect to help be a formidable part of maintaining the integrity and purpose of our constitution ego our nation. It’s fascinating to be able to be a part of his history seeing the courts change in such a drastic way from annihilating religious freedom to being a part of restoring what was always there before the judges became activists from the bench. This is a great book that shows all the parts of what impacted making the Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
“During my 15 years on the court, a lot of good work has been done to protect freedom of speech, religious liberty, and the structure of government created by the constitution. All of this is important. But in the end, there’s only so much that the judiciary can do to preserve our constitution and the liberty. It was adopted to protect. As Learned Hand famously wrote, ’Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court… can do much to help it.’ For all Americans, standing up for our constitution and our freedom is work that lies ahead.“
Portion of a speech to the lawyers of the federalist Society
“During my 15 years on the court, a lot of good work has been done to protect freedom of speech, religious liberty, and the structure of government created by the constitution. All of this is important. But in the end, there’s only so much that the judiciary can do to preserve our constitution and the liberty. It was adopted to protect. As Learned Hand famously wrote, ’Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court… can do much to help it.’ For all Americans, standing up for our constitution and our freedom is work that lies ahead.“
Portion of a speech to the lawyers of the federalist Society
May 2, 2026
The Supreme Court is an institution filled with history—good, bad, and ugly. It is an institution which has, in its record, handed down decisions both accurate and misguided, well-reasoned and socially legislated. Its justices have at times been well-equipped to address the deepest questions of government’s role, and in other cases, they have been people whose names will forever linger as those who failed to exercise their gift of reason, or who reasoned from faulty premises. In Mollie Hemingway’s most recent book, she does not simply give a history of a justice or a biography of Samuel Alito, but a history of the institution and a biography of the Court itself.
Hemingway has a remarkable gift for making complex subjects simple without losing their complexity. She has gone to great lengths to personally interview those who knew Alito when he was serving on the Court of Appeals, as well as those who have come to know him intimately—not only as a judge, but as a husband, a citizen, and even as a baseball fan. Her facts are well documented, and the one area where there is room for critique is not that she has under-documented the portrait she attempts to paint, but that at times she has over-documented it. In her pursuit of exactitude, she occasionally includes quotes that border on the vulgar. Notwithstanding this, it is admirable that instead of simply presenting Alito the justice, she has also shown us Alito the man.
Certainly, while always remaining within the bounds of the facts—all the facts—Hemingway has arranged them in such a way as to make the reader sympathetic to Alito and his interpretation of the law. She offers many critiques of other justices, both liberal and conservative. Sonia Sotomayor bears a large share of the blame for some of the more controversial decisions made by the Court, as does Chief Justice John Roberts. Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett are presented as figures who are at times in real opposition to what Alito considers the necessary course of action. Ketanji Brown Jackson, I must admit, is treated with considerable contempt, and in this I do not disagree. Even someone as widely respected as former Justice Antonin Scalia is, at times, criticized by Hemingway through Alito. Indeed, one of the most interesting aspects of this book is that it not only shows the Court as it is now, but also as it once was, with in-depth descriptions of justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. This greatly enriches the narrative, as it shows Alito in relation to others who were at times more famous, who at times outshone him, but from whom he always earned respect and admiration.
The name of Justice Samuel Alito will likely be remembered for his opinion in the decision in Dobbs, which struck down a fifty-year precedent that protected what you describe as the right of some human beings to murder other human beings. In some ways, the history of every Court since Roe v. Wade, from Rehnquist down to Roberts, has been the history of a colossal failure to adequately respond to what you view as an egregious abuse of constitutional law and constitutional telos. Samuel Alito was a young man studying at Yale when Roe was handed down. Now in his seventies, he helped to strike it from the record.
The author also devotes a significant portion of the book, intermittently, to Alito’s judicial philosophy. I was quite surprised to learn that Alito is not, as I had imagined, a pure constitutional originalist in the same sense as Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. What Hemingway calls Alito’s “all steak, no sizzle” approach to judicial review is, she argues, his defining characteristic as a Supreme Court justice. He is, in a way, a very original originalist. Unlike Scalia, he takes a more practical approach; he believes in the Constitution and in the values it embodies, but he also believes in common sense. It is not only by reading the Constitution of the United States that we can understand Alito’s philosophy; we must also read what might be called the constitution of nature.
This practicality, without descending into a legal positivism that sees man as nothing more than a subject of law, is what gives Alito’s jurisprudence its distinctive texture. He is not content with a cold recitation of clauses, nor does he wander into the fog of untethered moral invention. Instead, Hemingway presents him as a judge who reads the Constitution with one eye on its text and the other on the enduring realities of human nature. Law, in this view, is neither an abstract game nor a malleable instrument, but a framework built for real people within a real moral order.
This should be required reading in classes on jurisprudence and the American legal system. Hemingway, in a move that is rare among explicitly biased political reporters—even on the conservative spectrum—has managed, to a remarkable degree, to stay out of the political realm, for which she deserves admiration. Certainly, she does not hesitate to call things as she sees them, or as Alito sees them, but her goal is not primarily political, and in reading this book, ours should not be either.
Hemingway has a remarkable gift for making complex subjects simple without losing their complexity. She has gone to great lengths to personally interview those who knew Alito when he was serving on the Court of Appeals, as well as those who have come to know him intimately—not only as a judge, but as a husband, a citizen, and even as a baseball fan. Her facts are well documented, and the one area where there is room for critique is not that she has under-documented the portrait she attempts to paint, but that at times she has over-documented it. In her pursuit of exactitude, she occasionally includes quotes that border on the vulgar. Notwithstanding this, it is admirable that instead of simply presenting Alito the justice, she has also shown us Alito the man.
Certainly, while always remaining within the bounds of the facts—all the facts—Hemingway has arranged them in such a way as to make the reader sympathetic to Alito and his interpretation of the law. She offers many critiques of other justices, both liberal and conservative. Sonia Sotomayor bears a large share of the blame for some of the more controversial decisions made by the Court, as does Chief Justice John Roberts. Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett are presented as figures who are at times in real opposition to what Alito considers the necessary course of action. Ketanji Brown Jackson, I must admit, is treated with considerable contempt, and in this I do not disagree. Even someone as widely respected as former Justice Antonin Scalia is, at times, criticized by Hemingway through Alito. Indeed, one of the most interesting aspects of this book is that it not only shows the Court as it is now, but also as it once was, with in-depth descriptions of justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. This greatly enriches the narrative, as it shows Alito in relation to others who were at times more famous, who at times outshone him, but from whom he always earned respect and admiration.
The name of Justice Samuel Alito will likely be remembered for his opinion in the decision in Dobbs, which struck down a fifty-year precedent that protected what you describe as the right of some human beings to murder other human beings. In some ways, the history of every Court since Roe v. Wade, from Rehnquist down to Roberts, has been the history of a colossal failure to adequately respond to what you view as an egregious abuse of constitutional law and constitutional telos. Samuel Alito was a young man studying at Yale when Roe was handed down. Now in his seventies, he helped to strike it from the record.
The author also devotes a significant portion of the book, intermittently, to Alito’s judicial philosophy. I was quite surprised to learn that Alito is not, as I had imagined, a pure constitutional originalist in the same sense as Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. What Hemingway calls Alito’s “all steak, no sizzle” approach to judicial review is, she argues, his defining characteristic as a Supreme Court justice. He is, in a way, a very original originalist. Unlike Scalia, he takes a more practical approach; he believes in the Constitution and in the values it embodies, but he also believes in common sense. It is not only by reading the Constitution of the United States that we can understand Alito’s philosophy; we must also read what might be called the constitution of nature.
This practicality, without descending into a legal positivism that sees man as nothing more than a subject of law, is what gives Alito’s jurisprudence its distinctive texture. He is not content with a cold recitation of clauses, nor does he wander into the fog of untethered moral invention. Instead, Hemingway presents him as a judge who reads the Constitution with one eye on its text and the other on the enduring realities of human nature. Law, in this view, is neither an abstract game nor a malleable instrument, but a framework built for real people within a real moral order.
This should be required reading in classes on jurisprudence and the American legal system. Hemingway, in a move that is rare among explicitly biased political reporters—even on the conservative spectrum—has managed, to a remarkable degree, to stay out of the political realm, for which she deserves admiration. Certainly, she does not hesitate to call things as she sees them, or as Alito sees them, but her goal is not primarily political, and in reading this book, ours should not be either.
May 27, 2026
Outstanding book. I loved how recent controversial cases before the court were woven in as stories along with the biographical details of Justice Alito’s life. Hemingway is able to take what could be a very dry topic and make it riveting.
June 30, 2026
I think I started listening to Rush Limbaugh in 1990. It must have been 1992 when he talked about a novel he had begun reading, The Pelican Brief. He said it was by John Grisham, author of the breakthrough best seller, The Firm. The story begins with the assasination of two supreme court justices; one a liberal and the other a swing voter. The premise intrigued Rush and he wanted to share it with his audience as he shared all of his passions.
As best as I can recall, he stopped talking about the book. Maybe someone remembers differently. It turns out, the plot of the book went in quite the progressive direction. Turns out the killings in the book were the doings of an oil tycoon who was looking to drill in Louisiana. There was a case before the court to cease drilling to protect an endangered breed of pelican. As many of you recall from action films in the 1980’s and 1990’s, it was common for large corporations back in the day to have a line item for assassins and thugs.
This was Grisham’s third novel, after A Time to Kill and The Firm. It was the first novel where the writer made his left leaning political beliefs clear. Through the years, the villains in his novels have often been business people, particularly from the tobacco and energy industries. Republican politicians are often presented as quite shady. On the other hand, Grisham has also been open in his novels about his Christian faith. Two novels particularly, The Testament and The Chamber present clear presentations of the Gospel.
But back to The Pelican Brief. The novel presents what has come to a real danger, violent intimidation of Supreme Court Justices. But unlike Grisham’s book, the threats come from liberal activists to conservative justices.
I’ve read two books this year about the Supreme Court that remind us of the true danger we face.
The first was written by a Supreme Court Justice, Amy Coney Barrett’s Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.
Barrett didn’t want to write about her own story, but the publisher pressured her to do so. And I’m glad they did because hers is an interesting story. A mother of six who becomes a Supreme Court Justice and we do read some of how that came about and how her family has adjusted to it (back in the day it surely would have been a sitcom.)
But she is most interested in telling how the court decides cases and that is interesting as well. Not only is knowledge of the law important, but also knowledge of history and grammar.
I came out of the book with a great deal of respect for the Justice.
Many conservatives have been quite hostile toward Barrett because of her being part of the majority in ruling for birthright citizenship. But we as conservatives shouldn’t forget the part she played in striking down Roe vs. Wade, keeping Trump on ballots and even recently ruling that “temporary” really means temporary.
I truly believe Barrett, so different from the other women on the court, seeks to rule according to the meaning of the Constitution and legislation, regardless of her own political views.
And yet, she and her family in May were the victims of a swatting incident, someone called in a report of gunshots at her home in hope of causing chaos and perhaps bodily harm. If anyone thinks it was a conservative who did such a thing, that person is mad. Barrett has had to deal with protests at her home by vindictive and cruel progressives.
I referred to three books in the title as being “supreme” because all three books have the Supreme Court as a topic. But only one of these books deserves to be called “supreme” using the definition of being of top quality, the best, and that would be Mollie Hemingway’s excellent biography, Alito: The Justice who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution.
One can’t help reading this book without having a great respect for this humble, brilliant and courageous justice. Hemingway follows the path of this man’s life, from lower class upbringing to service in the military (the only current justice to have served) to service for the Attorney General in New Jersey to serving as a judge on the 3rd District Court of Appeals to his appointment to the Highest Court in the Land in 2006 (credit to President W. for that.)
Hemingway demonstrates the careful reasoning practiced by Sameul Alito that has helped lead originalism to being the dominant theory in current constitutional law.
A sad side story in the book is the increasing intimidation and threats of violence toward conservative members of the bench. Alito was, of course, the writer of the majority opinion for the decision that struck down Roe vs. Wadd, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Hemingway writes about the leaking of this opinion to the press months before the ruling was to be announced. The Supreme Court works on a system of trust for jurists and their clerks and that trust was greatly harmed by the leak. Chief Roberts’ investigation into the leak proved fruitless.
The court decision was not official until the opinion was announced along with the dissents. Hemingway reports on Justice Elena Kagen’s slow walking of her dissent, which put the conservative justices in literal peril. Protests at the conservative justices' homes were allowed, even encouraged, by the Biden Administration and Attorney General Merrick Garland. A man (not a woman as erroneously reported in some parts of the press) attempted the assasination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Hemingway expresses a concern in the book that the current climate of violence and intimidation of conservative justices might prevent future able candidates for the court for concern not only for their own safety, but that of their families. (While liberal justices freely attend public events, they are treated as pop culture celebrities.)
So, Grisham did get one thing right. Violence has become a factor in the life of the Supreme Court. He was just wrong about who is perpetrating that violence.
But at this time, we can celebrate the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in the creation of the third branch of government. We owe much of the preservation of our freedoms to the United States Supreme Court.
As best as I can recall, he stopped talking about the book. Maybe someone remembers differently. It turns out, the plot of the book went in quite the progressive direction. Turns out the killings in the book were the doings of an oil tycoon who was looking to drill in Louisiana. There was a case before the court to cease drilling to protect an endangered breed of pelican. As many of you recall from action films in the 1980’s and 1990’s, it was common for large corporations back in the day to have a line item for assassins and thugs.
This was Grisham’s third novel, after A Time to Kill and The Firm. It was the first novel where the writer made his left leaning political beliefs clear. Through the years, the villains in his novels have often been business people, particularly from the tobacco and energy industries. Republican politicians are often presented as quite shady. On the other hand, Grisham has also been open in his novels about his Christian faith. Two novels particularly, The Testament and The Chamber present clear presentations of the Gospel.
But back to The Pelican Brief. The novel presents what has come to a real danger, violent intimidation of Supreme Court Justices. But unlike Grisham’s book, the threats come from liberal activists to conservative justices.
I’ve read two books this year about the Supreme Court that remind us of the true danger we face.
The first was written by a Supreme Court Justice, Amy Coney Barrett’s Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.
Barrett didn’t want to write about her own story, but the publisher pressured her to do so. And I’m glad they did because hers is an interesting story. A mother of six who becomes a Supreme Court Justice and we do read some of how that came about and how her family has adjusted to it (back in the day it surely would have been a sitcom.)
But she is most interested in telling how the court decides cases and that is interesting as well. Not only is knowledge of the law important, but also knowledge of history and grammar.
I came out of the book with a great deal of respect for the Justice.
Many conservatives have been quite hostile toward Barrett because of her being part of the majority in ruling for birthright citizenship. But we as conservatives shouldn’t forget the part she played in striking down Roe vs. Wade, keeping Trump on ballots and even recently ruling that “temporary” really means temporary.
I truly believe Barrett, so different from the other women on the court, seeks to rule according to the meaning of the Constitution and legislation, regardless of her own political views.
And yet, she and her family in May were the victims of a swatting incident, someone called in a report of gunshots at her home in hope of causing chaos and perhaps bodily harm. If anyone thinks it was a conservative who did such a thing, that person is mad. Barrett has had to deal with protests at her home by vindictive and cruel progressives.
I referred to three books in the title as being “supreme” because all three books have the Supreme Court as a topic. But only one of these books deserves to be called “supreme” using the definition of being of top quality, the best, and that would be Mollie Hemingway’s excellent biography, Alito: The Justice who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution.
One can’t help reading this book without having a great respect for this humble, brilliant and courageous justice. Hemingway follows the path of this man’s life, from lower class upbringing to service in the military (the only current justice to have served) to service for the Attorney General in New Jersey to serving as a judge on the 3rd District Court of Appeals to his appointment to the Highest Court in the Land in 2006 (credit to President W. for that.)
Hemingway demonstrates the careful reasoning practiced by Sameul Alito that has helped lead originalism to being the dominant theory in current constitutional law.
A sad side story in the book is the increasing intimidation and threats of violence toward conservative members of the bench. Alito was, of course, the writer of the majority opinion for the decision that struck down Roe vs. Wadd, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Hemingway writes about the leaking of this opinion to the press months before the ruling was to be announced. The Supreme Court works on a system of trust for jurists and their clerks and that trust was greatly harmed by the leak. Chief Roberts’ investigation into the leak proved fruitless.
The court decision was not official until the opinion was announced along with the dissents. Hemingway reports on Justice Elena Kagen’s slow walking of her dissent, which put the conservative justices in literal peril. Protests at the conservative justices' homes were allowed, even encouraged, by the Biden Administration and Attorney General Merrick Garland. A man (not a woman as erroneously reported in some parts of the press) attempted the assasination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Hemingway expresses a concern in the book that the current climate of violence and intimidation of conservative justices might prevent future able candidates for the court for concern not only for their own safety, but that of their families. (While liberal justices freely attend public events, they are treated as pop culture celebrities.)
So, Grisham did get one thing right. Violence has become a factor in the life of the Supreme Court. He was just wrong about who is perpetrating that violence.
But at this time, we can celebrate the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in the creation of the third branch of government. We owe much of the preservation of our freedoms to the United States Supreme Court.
July 28, 2026
Justice Alito is rightfully acknowledged as among the greatest Justices on the SCOTUS. Ms. Hemingway has skillfully written an outstanding book detailing Justice Alito's many decisions while he sat on the Court.
July 12, 2026
I didn’t expect such a thorough review of all the Supreme Court justices or the well written history of the court’s recent history.
This is written from an openly stated conservative viewpoint, and I loved it. If you’re a news junkie, this is a must read.
This is written from an openly stated conservative viewpoint, and I loved it. If you’re a news junkie, this is a must read.
July 2, 2026
In Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution, Mollie Hemingway presents a detailed portrait of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, tracing his life, legal philosophy, and influence on the modern Court. Drawing on extensive reporting, Hemingway argues that Alito has become one of the most consequential originalist justices of his generation, particularly through landmark constitutional decisions. (Hachette Book Group)
The book is well-written and accessible, making complex legal issues understandable for general readers. While Hemingway’s admiration for Justice Alito is evident throughout, she offers valuable insight into his judicial reasoning and the political pressures surrounding the Supreme Court. Readers looking for a sympathetic and thoroughly researched account of Alito’s career will find this an engaging and informative read, though those seeking a more critical or ideologically neutral biography may wish to supplement it with other perspectives. Overall, Alito is a compelling contribution to the literature on the Supreme Court and contemporary constitutional law.
The book is well-written and accessible, making complex legal issues understandable for general readers. While Hemingway’s admiration for Justice Alito is evident throughout, she offers valuable insight into his judicial reasoning and the political pressures surrounding the Supreme Court. Readers looking for a sympathetic and thoroughly researched account of Alito’s career will find this an engaging and informative read, though those seeking a more critical or ideologically neutral biography may wish to supplement it with other perspectives. Overall, Alito is a compelling contribution to the literature on the Supreme Court and contemporary constitutional law.
July 9, 2026
Deeply researched and exquisitely written. But it doesn't deliver on the selling point. It's an exceptional book about the conservative legal movement, the Court's history and inner workings, and controversies in the Court, but its biographical treatment of Justice Alito is weak, and that's what I was expecting and hoping to read.
July 1, 2026
Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution is a compelling and deeply researched look at one of the most influential justices of our time. Mollie Hemingway goes beyond the headlines to paint a detailed portrait of Justice Samuel Alito’s life, judicial philosophy, and enduring impact on the Supreme Court. Whether you agree with his decisions or not, the book offers fascinating insight into the man behind some of the Court’s most consequential rulings and provides valuable context for understanding the modern conservative legal movement. An engaging read for anyone interested in the Constitution, the judiciary, and American politics.
September 13, 2026
After reading this biography of Samuel Alito, I'd have to say that I have a better idea of who Alito is and what he has done as a justice, but I wouldn't conclude that he has reshaped the court or restored the constitution, the author's claim in the title of this book. Many will know Alito from the news as the author of the Dobbs opinion overturning Roe, the black-robed raven-like justice who mouthed "not true, not true" as Barak Obama condemned Citizens United in his State of the Union speech, or as the justice who has come under ethics scrutiny for accepting undeclared gifts of flights and vacations. He has also been attacked for the flags he and his wife have flown over their homes, especially for an upside down American flag. Those events, as covered by an unsympathetic press, have left the impression, I think, that Alito is a bit of a conservative crank, a fellow-traveler with the MAGA crowd.
The title and bio of the author lead one to expect a book that seeks to present Alito positively, as a distinguished and admirable justice, and a conservative leader of the Court. I think it tries too hard to elevate Alito, which ends up making him seem actually a little bit less than he deserves. The second chapter, "This One's Brilliant," is about his rise to become a justice on the Supreme Court. Alito was a solid student, high school valedictorian, class president, on the debate club, and he was accepted at Princeton. Classmates and colleagues who knew him then seem to focus mostly on his being incisive, even-tempered, and more funny than you would think. The chapter is about how he came to be selected for the Court, and in that context one might expect the quote in the chapter title might be a quote from his Senate confirmation hearing or from someone recommending Alito to President Bush, but it turns out to be just the thought that passed through his future wife's mind as she first came to know him while working at the school library where he often studied. No similar accolade is offered from anyone else involved with establishing his bona fides.
In Chapter 3, "Lightening Strikes", we get more detail of the political landscape and situation leading up to Alito's appointment. He was a smart and successful student, a star of Steinert High School. As a teen he had been a Kennedy supporter, partly since they were both Catholics, but by the late 60's at Princeton, Alito was moving to the right as the young people around him in 1968 were moving to the left. He was put off by the disruption caused by the anti-war movement on campus that interfered with his studies and with his participation in the ROTC program at Princeton. And so when it came time to nominate a reliable conservative vote from among the generation that had come of age in the 1960s, Alito stood out from his more liberal classmates. One of the big concerns was that Bush not nominate someone who would seem conservative but move to the left once they were on the Court. Alito seemed to a dyed in the wool conservative, like Scalia and Thomas, and he had a solid--if not spectacular--resume. He checked all the right boxes on President Bush's checklist and he got the nod after some earlier attempts to put a candidate on the court fizzled.
Chapter 4 is title "Building the Best Court in History". Here we get a discussion of the Court's move to the right and the impact that had on the liberal wing of the Court. Hemingway disses some of the more liberal members of the court. We are told that Kagan has a reputation for being mean to her clerks. Sotomayor is said to be less smart than she thinks and a bit of a bully, based on assessments by liberals angling for a different Supreme Court nominee in the lead up to her joining the court. The author discusses the ways in which some of the liberals--Sotomayor and Ginsberg especially-- delivered oral dissents to signal to supporters outside of the court what they felt about opinions that they dissented from. This created political pressure that might effect some justices, e.g. Roberts and Barrett, but which did not affect Alito. Alito by is imperviousness to public opinion, is shown to be, as hoped for, an unflagging conservative vote on the Court.
Chapter 5, "False Flags", concerns liberal attacks on conservative justices like Alito and Thomas. Stories that purport to report on real news are instead attacks on justices who took conservative position at odds with those views held by the press and more liberal Americans, e.g. on topics like abortion, same-sex marriage, and affirmative action. There is truth in the observation that much of the press is more liberal than much of the population, and more liberal than the current make up of the conservative Court. It is possible to see that reporting goes after the unfavored judges more than those with the politically correct viewpoints. That said, facts do seem to show that the conservative justices, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito, have accepted gifts that raise ethical concerns. It seems unlikely that these gifts would change those justices' votes, they are always going to vote conservative no matter what, but a cozy relationship with the nation's wealthiest members could surely have an influence on what the Justices write even if it has none on how they vote.
In "A Practical Originalist", Chapter 6, covers some of Alito's majority opinions and some of his dissents. Not much of a political philosophy stands out from this summary except that Alito always votes conservatively. After reading this chapter, I found my previous view of Alito reinforced--he is not all that persuasive as a legal thinker, but his politics are clearly conservative and you can count on him to vote in line with that conservatism. He is "practical" in the way his legal opinions seem based mostly on his own opinion of how each case should come out. The author suggests that Alito applies tradition and natural law in cases where the law is indeterminate. This hardly sets him up as the man who reshaped the court and restored the constitution, unless all she means by this is that Alito was the author of the Dodd majority?
The last chapter, Chapter 7, "Do the Hard Thing," is about overruling Roe. It was an interesting discussion, but doesn't really show much to burnish Alito's judicial reputation. It seems to me that this is the chapter that the book was written for. It is here that Hemingway clearly takes a side, stating flat out that the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, a big mistake that Alito and the Supreme Court finally corrected. As she writes, "The problems stacked up when Blackmun and his colleagues used the cases [Roe and Bolton] to invent a right to abortion, based on a supposed right to "privacy" found in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and establish an abortion regime more extreme than that found in nearly every other country." (p. 231) The entire chapter is written as a triumphant success story as Scott Stewart prepares for and argues for the overturn of Roe. Hemingway says at another point, Roberts was wrong to want to gradually retreat from the Roe opinion because "The more conservative justices did not find his approach compelling because Casey had become a gangrenous wound that required the entire limb of Roe to be cut off." (p. 254). And, "When the dissent authored by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan finally appeared, it read more like a temper tantrum than a work of judicial reasoning." (p. 255). Suffice it to say, there isn't much objectivity in the author's take on abortion rights.
There is an epilogue, "All Steak and No Sizzle." It ends with a bit more detail about the kind of person Alito is, namely humble, recognizing that the work of preserving the Constitution is ongoing and lies as much in the hearts and minds of the people as in the work of the Court.
The title and bio of the author lead one to expect a book that seeks to present Alito positively, as a distinguished and admirable justice, and a conservative leader of the Court. I think it tries too hard to elevate Alito, which ends up making him seem actually a little bit less than he deserves. The second chapter, "This One's Brilliant," is about his rise to become a justice on the Supreme Court. Alito was a solid student, high school valedictorian, class president, on the debate club, and he was accepted at Princeton. Classmates and colleagues who knew him then seem to focus mostly on his being incisive, even-tempered, and more funny than you would think. The chapter is about how he came to be selected for the Court, and in that context one might expect the quote in the chapter title might be a quote from his Senate confirmation hearing or from someone recommending Alito to President Bush, but it turns out to be just the thought that passed through his future wife's mind as she first came to know him while working at the school library where he often studied. No similar accolade is offered from anyone else involved with establishing his bona fides.
In Chapter 3, "Lightening Strikes", we get more detail of the political landscape and situation leading up to Alito's appointment. He was a smart and successful student, a star of Steinert High School. As a teen he had been a Kennedy supporter, partly since they were both Catholics, but by the late 60's at Princeton, Alito was moving to the right as the young people around him in 1968 were moving to the left. He was put off by the disruption caused by the anti-war movement on campus that interfered with his studies and with his participation in the ROTC program at Princeton. And so when it came time to nominate a reliable conservative vote from among the generation that had come of age in the 1960s, Alito stood out from his more liberal classmates. One of the big concerns was that Bush not nominate someone who would seem conservative but move to the left once they were on the Court. Alito seemed to a dyed in the wool conservative, like Scalia and Thomas, and he had a solid--if not spectacular--resume. He checked all the right boxes on President Bush's checklist and he got the nod after some earlier attempts to put a candidate on the court fizzled.
Chapter 4 is title "Building the Best Court in History". Here we get a discussion of the Court's move to the right and the impact that had on the liberal wing of the Court. Hemingway disses some of the more liberal members of the court. We are told that Kagan has a reputation for being mean to her clerks. Sotomayor is said to be less smart than she thinks and a bit of a bully, based on assessments by liberals angling for a different Supreme Court nominee in the lead up to her joining the court. The author discusses the ways in which some of the liberals--Sotomayor and Ginsberg especially-- delivered oral dissents to signal to supporters outside of the court what they felt about opinions that they dissented from. This created political pressure that might effect some justices, e.g. Roberts and Barrett, but which did not affect Alito. Alito by is imperviousness to public opinion, is shown to be, as hoped for, an unflagging conservative vote on the Court.
Chapter 5, "False Flags", concerns liberal attacks on conservative justices like Alito and Thomas. Stories that purport to report on real news are instead attacks on justices who took conservative position at odds with those views held by the press and more liberal Americans, e.g. on topics like abortion, same-sex marriage, and affirmative action. There is truth in the observation that much of the press is more liberal than much of the population, and more liberal than the current make up of the conservative Court. It is possible to see that reporting goes after the unfavored judges more than those with the politically correct viewpoints. That said, facts do seem to show that the conservative justices, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito, have accepted gifts that raise ethical concerns. It seems unlikely that these gifts would change those justices' votes, they are always going to vote conservative no matter what, but a cozy relationship with the nation's wealthiest members could surely have an influence on what the Justices write even if it has none on how they vote.
In "A Practical Originalist", Chapter 6, covers some of Alito's majority opinions and some of his dissents. Not much of a political philosophy stands out from this summary except that Alito always votes conservatively. After reading this chapter, I found my previous view of Alito reinforced--he is not all that persuasive as a legal thinker, but his politics are clearly conservative and you can count on him to vote in line with that conservatism. He is "practical" in the way his legal opinions seem based mostly on his own opinion of how each case should come out. The author suggests that Alito applies tradition and natural law in cases where the law is indeterminate. This hardly sets him up as the man who reshaped the court and restored the constitution, unless all she means by this is that Alito was the author of the Dodd majority?
The last chapter, Chapter 7, "Do the Hard Thing," is about overruling Roe. It was an interesting discussion, but doesn't really show much to burnish Alito's judicial reputation. It seems to me that this is the chapter that the book was written for. It is here that Hemingway clearly takes a side, stating flat out that the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, a big mistake that Alito and the Supreme Court finally corrected. As she writes, "The problems stacked up when Blackmun and his colleagues used the cases [Roe and Bolton] to invent a right to abortion, based on a supposed right to "privacy" found in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and establish an abortion regime more extreme than that found in nearly every other country." (p. 231) The entire chapter is written as a triumphant success story as Scott Stewart prepares for and argues for the overturn of Roe. Hemingway says at another point, Roberts was wrong to want to gradually retreat from the Roe opinion because "The more conservative justices did not find his approach compelling because Casey had become a gangrenous wound that required the entire limb of Roe to be cut off." (p. 254). And, "When the dissent authored by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan finally appeared, it read more like a temper tantrum than a work of judicial reasoning." (p. 255). Suffice it to say, there isn't much objectivity in the author's take on abortion rights.
There is an epilogue, "All Steak and No Sizzle." It ends with a bit more detail about the kind of person Alito is, namely humble, recognizing that the work of preserving the Constitution is ongoing and lies as much in the hearts and minds of the people as in the work of the Court.
July 4, 2026
The rudder of the Supreme Court
Hemingway gives her reader a rare insight into the mind of Justice Alito. She is able to show many side of a private man who is a judicial genius. I’m proud that he is a fellow Trentonian.
Hemingway gives her reader a rare insight into the mind of Justice Alito. She is able to show many side of a private man who is a judicial genius. I’m proud that he is a fellow Trentonian.
July 1, 2026
Basically, how Roe V Wade was overturned
June 27, 2026
Honestly really enjoyed. Was factually very informative and educational especially for someone of my own ideologies. Can definitely tell where Hemingway is coming from LOL but all in all I learned a lot. Wasn’t a super huge fan of her organizational writing styles at some points but personal preference
May 24, 2026
“For judicial conservatives, the job of a judge is to interpret the laws as written, whether or not he or she personally agrees with them. For judicial activists, decisions based on creative interpretation of the law are a means to advance a political agenda. Many liberals viewed Congress’s passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 as a rebuke to the Supreme Court’s majority. In fact, it was a validation of its ruling. If elected representatives wanted the law to say something different from what it actually said, it was in their power to change the law.”
“Hamilton, Jefferson, and all the Founding Fathers recognized that the Constitution is the supreme and ultimate expression of the will of the American people. They saw that no one in office could remain above it, if freedom were to survive through the ages.”
—President Ronald Reagan (1986)
“Samuel Alito is an improbable justice. Unlike so many people in Washington, DC, he arrived at his position solely because of his intellect and hard work. He is not a politician or a glad-hander. His personality and way of life are shockingly normal. He occupies an exalted position that is ordinarily attained only through relentless diplomacy and self-promotion, traits no one has ever observed in him. His public schools, liberal college, and liberal law school did not weaken his rock-solid convictions. He does not care what people think of him, and indeed the most common word his fellow justices use to describe him is ‘courageous.’”
“During my fifteen years on the court, a lot of good work has been done to protect freedom of speech, religious liberty, and the structure of government created by the Constitution. All of this is important. But in the end, there is only so much that the judiciary can do to preserve our Constitution and the liberty it was adopted to protect. As Learned Hand famously wrote, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court… can do much to help it.” For all Americans, standing up for our Constitution and our freedom is work that lies ahead.”
—Justice Samuel Alito (2022)
4.5⭐️
“Hamilton, Jefferson, and all the Founding Fathers recognized that the Constitution is the supreme and ultimate expression of the will of the American people. They saw that no one in office could remain above it, if freedom were to survive through the ages.”
—President Ronald Reagan (1986)
“Samuel Alito is an improbable justice. Unlike so many people in Washington, DC, he arrived at his position solely because of his intellect and hard work. He is not a politician or a glad-hander. His personality and way of life are shockingly normal. He occupies an exalted position that is ordinarily attained only through relentless diplomacy and self-promotion, traits no one has ever observed in him. His public schools, liberal college, and liberal law school did not weaken his rock-solid convictions. He does not care what people think of him, and indeed the most common word his fellow justices use to describe him is ‘courageous.’”
“During my fifteen years on the court, a lot of good work has been done to protect freedom of speech, religious liberty, and the structure of government created by the Constitution. All of this is important. But in the end, there is only so much that the judiciary can do to preserve our Constitution and the liberty it was adopted to protect. As Learned Hand famously wrote, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court… can do much to help it.” For all Americans, standing up for our Constitution and our freedom is work that lies ahead.”
—Justice Samuel Alito (2022)
4.5⭐️
June 26, 2026
Excellent read
May 26, 2026
This book is not properly titled. It's really two books combined under one cover. One topic is Justice Alito, his biography, philosophy, and a few of his most important decisions while on the Supreme Court. The second topic is the history of the Roberts Court, which sketches of several of the justices who have served on this court. As she tells this second story, Hemingway provides a contrast between the button-down, efficient Alito with the more scattered, less predictable preferences of a few of the other justices, whom she disapproves of. A better title may have been "Alito: 20 Years on the Supreme Court."
Hemingway provides some very detailed behind-the-scenes reporting on a few of the Court's most controversial decisions under Roberts. She primarily focuses on Dobbs, as well as the political pressure that some justices and political leaders in DC have applied to the Court in recent years to influence outcomes. She also inserts some media criticism, dissecting critics of the Court who will find fault with Republican appointees to the bench, while praising Liberal appointees for the exact same behavior. A few of the examples, which I'd been unaware of, are rich.
Even for dedicated newhounds like myself, Hemingway provides new facts and insights into important topics that we've followed as they've unfolded.
This book is most likely to be enjoyed by a Conservative.
Hemingway provides some very detailed behind-the-scenes reporting on a few of the Court's most controversial decisions under Roberts. She primarily focuses on Dobbs, as well as the political pressure that some justices and political leaders in DC have applied to the Court in recent years to influence outcomes. She also inserts some media criticism, dissecting critics of the Court who will find fault with Republican appointees to the bench, while praising Liberal appointees for the exact same behavior. A few of the examples, which I'd been unaware of, are rich.
Even for dedicated newhounds like myself, Hemingway provides new facts and insights into important topics that we've followed as they've unfolded.
This book is most likely to be enjoyed by a Conservative.
May 6, 2026
Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution offers an in-depth look at the life, judicial philosophy, and influence of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. The book examines how Alito’s decisions and constitutional interpretations have shaped major legal debates in the United States, particularly regarding individual rights, federal authority, and the role of the judiciary. The author presents a detailed account of Alito’s career, from his early legal work to his rise on the Supreme Court, while also exploring the controversies and praise surrounding his opinions. One of the book’s strengths is its clear explanation of complex constitutional issues, making important court decisions easier for readers to understand. The writing is informative and engaging, especially for readers interested in law, politics, and the Supreme Court. Although the book presents a perspective that many readers may see as supportive of Alito’s judicial approach, it still provides valuable insight into the impact of his legal reasoning on modern American jurisprudence. Overall, this is a compelling and thought-provoking read for anyone interested in constitutional law and the evolving role of the Supreme Court in American society.
May 12, 2026
Mollie Hemingway’s, “Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution,” is much more than a biographical look at the brilliant, yet humble, Associate Justice who has made such a mark on the present Supreme Court, but it is also a look at the other eight justices, the pressures that justices face from the media and politicians, and even a look back at the Warren and Burger courts, and their laissez-faire attitude toward the Constitution in their rulings. The chapter on the making of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision is worth the price of the book. My liberal friends may (probably will) sense the author’s conservative viewpoint and be annoyed, but she writes so well, and the information presented is so valuable, they should be able to look beyond that (Hey, if I can read Jake Tapper and Jonathan Karl they should be able to read Mollie Hemingway.) The book raised my level of respect for Alito (if that was even possible) and reinforced my disappointment with John Roberts. Read this book!! (326 pages)
May 29, 2026
A very insightful book on both Justice Alito and the Supreme Court as an institution. The book provides a humanizing portrait on Alito and helps shed light on his principles of jurisprudence, although perhaps and an overly fawning manner. Very similarly the author is at times more critical or centrist justices (such as Roberts, O’Connor, Kennedy and even Barrett), but saves its most biting critiques for the far left justices (particularly Jackson, but also Sotomayor). That overt rightward tint somewhat taints an otherwise fine biography with unique insight on the Court. Given some of the chatter in DC about Alito’s potential for retirement, one has to wonder if this fawning profile is part of that effort. A highlight reel of Alitos finest accomplishments before he bows out.
June 12, 2026
The author loves the subject, admires the subject and treasures his impact on our nation and legal system. Great book. Great Subject. Great author.
April 30, 2026
Well written and comprehensive in detailing Justice Alito's constitutional methodology. As well as his leadership and impact on the court over his career. Although I generally understood how the court's coalition building worked, I didn't fully appreciate how difficult and intricate it actually was. Thanks to Mollie Hemingway, I think I now fully appreciate it. As well as have a better appreciation for one of best and most strident justices to sit the Supreme Court in the modern era.
May 28, 2026
I found this book very interesting. Though the chapters are longer than I'm used to, the authors narrative style makes it more approachable. She offers an interesting, not-partisan account, of Justice Alito and the ways he serves and interacts with the Supreme Court. It was helpful to me to better understand the history of the Court over the past several decades.
June 8, 2026
Justice Alito is a role model for my sons and me we never knew existed. In a world of self-centered smoke and mirrors, this book explains the “all steak no sizzle” that society needs in the man Alito. I also learned much about the SCOTUS I didn’t know I didn’t know.
April 25, 2026
An exceptional book on one of the finest justices to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. Hemmingway’s long chapter on Alito’s reasoning in the Dobbs decision is alone worth reading the book.
May 11, 2026
A great perspective on the entire court. Hemingway doesn't just cover Alito, but gives background on all the justices and how they got to the court. She then uses that background to illuminate Alito. Good job!
May 10, 2026
Interesting look inside the Supreme Court and Justice Alito.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews