What do you think?
Scalia: Supreme Court Years, 1986 to 2001
A Powerful Voice Brings Change to the Supreme Court
In this second installment of James Rosen’s masterful biography—hailed as “monumental,” “ground-breaking,” and “definitive”—Antonin Scalia brings his intellectual genius, literary gifts, and wit to the staid corridors of the Supreme Court.
Championing originalism—the idea that the Constitution and statutes should be interpreted according to the original meaning these texts carried when they were enacted, without being expanded or twisted by activist judges—Scalia changed forever the way the law is crafted in Congress, argued before the bench, and adjudicated by our courts. The impact on American society was revolutionary.
Drawing on his own lunches and correspondence with Scalia, interviews with other justices and judges, family members, priests, poker buddies, and hunting companions, as well as newly unsealed letters, memoranda, and draft opinions, Rosen makes Scalia, and the law, come alive.
We are in the room as the firebrand justice charms and confronts the towering figures of American William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor, Thurgood Marshall and Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas. “I attack ideas, not people,” Scalia said—but several colleagues at the Marble Temple, particularly those committed to a “Living Constitution,” bristled at the sting of his opinions.
Supreme Court Years, 1986–2001 covers the first half of Scalia’s Court tenure, climaxing in the national drama of Bush v. Gore, and Scalia the devout Catholic, loving husband, stern father, world traveler, hot-tempered subject of news reporting.
It’s a ride like no other.
In this second installment of James Rosen’s masterful biography—hailed as “monumental,” “ground-breaking,” and “definitive”—Antonin Scalia brings his intellectual genius, literary gifts, and wit to the staid corridors of the Supreme Court.
Championing originalism—the idea that the Constitution and statutes should be interpreted according to the original meaning these texts carried when they were enacted, without being expanded or twisted by activist judges—Scalia changed forever the way the law is crafted in Congress, argued before the bench, and adjudicated by our courts. The impact on American society was revolutionary.
Drawing on his own lunches and correspondence with Scalia, interviews with other justices and judges, family members, priests, poker buddies, and hunting companions, as well as newly unsealed letters, memoranda, and draft opinions, Rosen makes Scalia, and the law, come alive.
We are in the room as the firebrand justice charms and confronts the towering figures of American William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor, Thurgood Marshall and Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas. “I attack ideas, not people,” Scalia said—but several colleagues at the Marble Temple, particularly those committed to a “Living Constitution,” bristled at the sting of his opinions.
Supreme Court Years, 1986–2001 covers the first half of Scalia’s Court tenure, climaxing in the national drama of Bush v. Gore, and Scalia the devout Catholic, loving husband, stern father, world traveler, hot-tempered subject of news reporting.
It’s a ride like no other.
528 pages, Hardcover
Published February 10, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
Did Not Finish
June 12, 2026Might pick this up on audiobook but the amount of italics is frustrating in this book and makes this book feel manipulative (emphasizing the goodness of Scalia/etc). I’m not saying Scalia is or isn’t good but let his character shine through your reporting, not by editorializing italics >:(
I may just find another book as well. I’m intrigued by Scalia, especially after reading Amy Coney Barrett’s book on the Supreme Court and her respect for him.
I may just find another book as well. I’m intrigued by Scalia, especially after reading Amy Coney Barrett’s book on the Supreme Court and her respect for him.
August 3, 2026
I don't know what this says about me or the author, but I had no plans to read this book, simply because I didn't want to start in the middle of a multivolume biography. In other words, I totally forgot I read (and enjoyed) the first volume!
But I'm grateful I realized that and forged ahead, because this book was well worth the time. It is not a case-by-case look at Scalia's first fifteen years on the court, but at over 500 pages it certainly gives plenty of detail for dozens of important cases. And with the released papers of some of Scalia's early colleagues, we now get a window into much of the intra-court deliberations.
Rosen writes about how frustrated Scalia was for most of this first half of his time on the court. And with associates like his, who could blame him? Scalia certainly reserved scorn for those who should have known better (O'Connor, Kennedy), based on their convictions, than to so often eschew principles for pragmatics. I'm not sure how much has changed since, even if I like the outcomes better.
The book closes with the 2000 election. Scalia loved to point out that the main vote in Bush v. Gore was 7-2 (regarding the unconstitutionality of the actions of the Florida Supreme Court), even if the vote on what to do with the recount was closer. This is an important fact to remember when considering that controversy (or to learn, in my case--not sure I remembered that at all).
Hopefully I won't forget I read this volume when it comes time for the surely very worthwhile third and final volume!
But I'm grateful I realized that and forged ahead, because this book was well worth the time. It is not a case-by-case look at Scalia's first fifteen years on the court, but at over 500 pages it certainly gives plenty of detail for dozens of important cases. And with the released papers of some of Scalia's early colleagues, we now get a window into much of the intra-court deliberations.
Rosen writes about how frustrated Scalia was for most of this first half of his time on the court. And with associates like his, who could blame him? Scalia certainly reserved scorn for those who should have known better (O'Connor, Kennedy), based on their convictions, than to so often eschew principles for pragmatics. I'm not sure how much has changed since, even if I like the outcomes better.
The book closes with the 2000 election. Scalia loved to point out that the main vote in Bush v. Gore was 7-2 (regarding the unconstitutionality of the actions of the Florida Supreme Court), even if the vote on what to do with the recount was closer. This is an important fact to remember when considering that controversy (or to learn, in my case--not sure I remembered that at all).
Hopefully I won't forget I read this volume when it comes time for the surely very worthwhile third and final volume!
July 10, 2026
Listened to this on Audible. AI narrator makes me give this a 4 star. Many word and name mispronunciations over and over. Also sentences skip and don’t restart.
Do better Audible. Go back to hired humans or the authors to narrate.
Much very difficult to understand legal readings that as a non lawyer was hard for follow. But I enjoyed all else Scalia and Supeme Court history
Rosen excellent with his sourcing and even his relentless back and forth with the justice to get to know him personally with the inability to break strict Court rules on non sharing
Do better Audible. Go back to hired humans or the authors to narrate.
Much very difficult to understand legal readings that as a non lawyer was hard for follow. But I enjoyed all else Scalia and Supeme Court history
Rosen excellent with his sourcing and even his relentless back and forth with the justice to get to know him personally with the inability to break strict Court rules on non sharing
June 15, 2026
Volume II of Rosen’s biography. Worthwhile read given Justice Scalia’s importance, but book is marred by author’s “whataboutism” and other biases, along with the occasional informal sloppiness of his writing. Also, as someone who knew the Justice and worked with him for a decade, I found that Rosen’s hagiographic approach fails to convey Antonin Scalia’s exuberant humanity, with all of its joys and contradictions.
Read
June 10, 2026Great. My only gripe is the first two-thirds of the book repeated a lot of information (and often using the same phrasing) from the first volume, which, if you’re someone who has a strong memory or recently read the first book, can be grating.
April 22, 2026
93/100
5 stars - 90/100
4 stars - 80/100
3 stars - 70/100
2 stars - 60/100
1 star - 50/100
5 stars - 90/100
4 stars - 80/100
3 stars - 70/100
2 stars - 60/100
1 star - 50/100
July 3, 2026
I eagerly await the sequel.
August 5, 2026
Audible version is terrible. The digital narrator made so many pronunciation mistakes that it was tough to get through.
August 17, 2026
Fabulous research
Even though its full of law and lawyerly language, its well worth the slog. Balanced, well written, and definitely thorough.
Even though its full of law and lawyerly language, its well worth the slog. Balanced, well written, and definitely thorough.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews