Scalia's Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents

by Antonin Scalia, Kevin A. Ring

The sudden passing of Justice Antonin Scalia shook America. After almost thirty years on the Supreme Court, Scalia had become as integral to the institution as the hallowed room in which he sat. His wisecracking interruptions during oral arguments, his unmatched legal wisdom, his unwavering dedication to the Constitution, and his blistering dissents defined his leadership role on the court and inspired new generations of policymakers and legal minds.

Now, as Republicans and Democrats wage war over Scalia’s lamentably empty Supreme Court seat, Kevin Ring, former counsel to the U.S. Senate’s Constitution Subcommittee, has taken a close look at the cases that best illustrate Scalia’s character, philosophy, and legacy. In Scalia’s Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents, Ring collects Scalia’s most memorable opinions on free speech, separation of powers, race, religious freedom, the rights of the accused, abortion, and more; and intersperses Scalia's own words with an analysis of his legal reasoning and his lasting impact on American jurisprudence.

“I don’t worry about my legacy,” Scalia once told an audience at the National Archives. “Just do your job right, and who cares?”

Now that "the lion of American law has left the stage,” as the U.S. Attorney General put it, it is for the rest of America to worry about his legacy—and to care.

Genres: Law, Nonfiction, Politics, Legal, Biography, Essays, American

580 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 4, 2016

About the author

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

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

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

Reviews

[Nemo · Rating 5 out of 5]

The important thing in Democracy is not to win, but to take part; the important thing in Life is not to have conquered but to have fought well.

The Socrates of SCOTUS

About four years ago, I had an interesting GR group discussion of the trial and death of Socrates. Someone said that the Athenians were good at sophistry, not sound reasoning, whereas the judicial system in the US was more conducive to reasoned judgments. I said, "You would be hard pressed to prove that the Athenians' arguments are not well-reasoned. It takes the discernment of the wisest man to tear them apart. Who is to say that, if Socrates were alive today, he would not have a field day with the U.S. courts, even the Supreme Court?" He replied, "I'd pay good money to hear Socrates v. Scalia", referring to Antonin Scalia, a long-serving (now late) Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States renowned for his acerbic wit.

Scalia and Socrates share many striking similarities in their philosophy. One might even say that Scalia is the Socrates of SCOTUS.

American Gadfly

In Scalia's Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents, Scalia's gadfly spirit is in full display. As Justice Ginsburg put it, Scalia "nailed all of the weak spots" in the opinions and arguments of his fellow justices, all the legalistic argle-bargle, interpretive jiggery-pokery, and downright gobbledegook.

Sophistry is very much alive today as it was in Socrates' time, when people talk grandiloquently about rights, freedom and equality without the faintest idea what those words actually mean. Like Socrates, Scalia served to arouse us from slumber, urging and reproaching each one of us, to examine our explicit and implicit beliefs, whether they pass the muster of reason and logic.

Respect for Law

According to the sophist Protagoras, man is the measure of all things. In other words, man is the ultimate arbiter of what is good and just, and as such he is the lawgiver and there is none above him.

According to Plato, justice is objective and transcends man. Man is not in a position to decree justice from himself, but to contemplate justice as objective truth and participate in it. Because of his abiding respect for law, Socrates did not escape from prison when he was condemned to death by the Athenians through due process of law.

Scalia has the same abiding respect for law as Plato/Socrates. As a judge, he strives to interpret and apply the law faithfully, and rejects time and again the temptation to act as lawgiver himself, even when it is expedient and popular to do so. His judicial restraint is a mark of his honesty and humility.

The Nature and Structure of the Constitution

There are two schools of thought regarding the Constitution of the United States, which seem to correspond to the doctrines of Protagoras and Plato. One school is represented by Justice Breyer, and the other Justice Scalia.

Breyer argues that society has been evolving along with people's understanding of justice, so the Court should make decisions and interpret the Constitution in ways that reflect the evolving standard of decency, thereby essentially making new laws. In short, the Constitution is "living"; Scalia replies, "The Constitution is not a living organism, it's a legal text." The job of the Court is not to legislate from the bench, but to interpret the Constitution faithfully as it was originally meant by the framers and understood by the people in its historical context. It should make valid legal decisions, without either favoring religion or bowing to secular pressure.

In pure democracy, people both legislate and interpret laws. It was true in ancient Greece, it is true in the U.K, and increasingly so in the U.S. However, the beauty of the U.S. Constitution is the principle of check and balance, also known as separation of powers. It put checks not only on the power of the government, but also on the people. The U.S. is not a pure democracy, but a mixture of monarchy (President), oligarchy (Supreme Court) and democracy (Congress). The power to make laws is reserved for the people alone, who legislate through their representatives in Congress. The power to interpret the Constitution is reserved for the Supreme Court, not the people, as a necessary check to prevent mob rule. It is a work for lawyers, viz. those who follow the dictates of law and logic, not personal desires and predilections. On this point, Plato would definitely side with Scalia. In addition, by framing the Constitution in the historical context, in a way, Scalia makes the Constitution enduring and unchanging, like Plato's conception of Justice. No matter how the society evolves, there is always a fixed frame of reference, which is another application of the principle of check and balance.

[John Devlin · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book can get a bit ponderous and it would be nice if it was more about the man than his words…but that would be a different book…what comes through is Scalia’s unrelenting demand that the constitution means what it says and that’s all…and that if the document doesn’t speak directly on an issue then Scotus should not have a role in legislating from the bench…

…Scalia’s insight was in demonstrating how far judges had moved into becoming activists…criticisms of his outlook, mostly from the left, seem to miss that his argument was for much less power from Scotus…legislatures needed to make rules where the constitution didn’t speak…

…scalia liked to remind his brethren that they were just nine lawyers in robes and the legislature could act far more quickly to rectify an error and that if politicians erred they could be quickly recalled, unlike the robed barristers who had lifetime tenure…

[Fredrick Danysh · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author gives his interpretation of opinions on a variety of opinions written by Justice Anthony Scalia on a variety of issues ranging from abortion to gun control to immigration. This work reads like it was written for the legal profession.

[Stanislav Siris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Justice Scalia uses the mastery of English language and logic to state his opinions with amazing clarity. The brutality of simplicity of logic with which Justice Scalia takes apart, brick by brick if you will, the opinion of majority is awe inspiring. The consistency with which he applies the principles of textualism and originalism to his opinions and dissents should serve as a counter argument to anyone claiming favoritism on Scalia's part. This book is not an easy read for a laymen of law, such as myself, and requires revisiting certain texts to understand the details, in order to fully understand and appreciate the work. The reward, understanding of the reasoning, is very much worth the time and effort.
As a Libertarian, and a proponent of 9th Amendment and Substantive Due Process, I find myself in disagreement with some of Scalia's opinions. However, I have found his reasons for being critical of Substantive Due Process rather compelling. As Justice Scalia notes, “The entire practice of using the Due Process Clause to add judicially favored rights to the limitations upon democracy set forth in the Bill of Rights (usually under the rubric of so-called “substantive due process”) is in my view judicial usurpation.”
Aside from being a rewarding read, this book has forced me to seek stronger arguments for the role of the 9th Amendment and a Substantive Due Process by revisiting the works of Libertarian legal scholars such as Randy Barnett and Timothy Sandefur.

[Kristal · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a well-curated collection of Justice Scalia's writing. It is a collection of his most interesting and fun-to-read opinions and dissents, not necessarily his most important and noteworthy writing. I think this is a breath of fresh air - there are a lot of resources if you're looking for his most important and noteworthy opinions. This collection of writings is about how Justice Scalia had a both a particularly well-developed view of the world and of jurisprudence, and how he was uniquely gifted at using language to cut to the heart of the matter. No matter you're political views (and I personally disagreed with many of Justice Scalia's), this is a collection worth reading.

[Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm so grateful I read this book. It was so educational and encouraged us to learn more about the law of our country. My family and I had some interesting discussions because of it. Scalia was a brilliant, thoughtful, funny man. I'm glad we learned more about him.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I laughed, I cried, I fell in love with the English language all over again. This book changed my life. Buy this book now and thank me later.

[Braden · Rating 5 out of 5]

Should you have told me a year ago that I would not only consume, but immensely enjoy, a book that is just legal opinions from some old judge, I suppose I wouldn't have believed it. I do like logic, but I've always greatly disliked lawyers and lawyerly sophistry, so I was surprised recently to be interested in a lecture about Supreme Court history from the Great Courses library. This led me to watch some mini documentaries on YouTube, along with lectures and conversations from supreme Court justices. That, in turn, led me here. And honestly, I can't think of another recent book that I have enjoyed more than this.

Not only is Scalia's prose entertaining and witty, not only are his arguments expositive and cogent, and not only are the systematic progressions of his opinions enlightening, but the entire jurisprudential basis of his constitutional understanding is absolutely revolutionary in shaping my appreciation for the power and place of the Supreme Court and my understanding of the danger of judicial overreach.

I've grown up hearing politicians talk about "constructionist judges" or "strict constitutionalists," but I always assumed that was just political gobbledygook code for "someone who votes the way I want them to." As it turns out, however, there is a very specific definition and classification for these terms, and I'm convinced that more of this is critical to the success of our system of government. Scalia is clearly conservative in his personal opinions, and it shows in his court opinions, but much less than I would have thought. Instead, his judicial philosophy was one of severely limiting the supreme Court justices from imposing their politics, whatever they may be, onto the interpretation of law. Time and again, he utterly and eloquently destroys and lays bare the self-serving opinions of many of his colleagues, who sought to become the law until themselves, taking legislative authority away from Congress and giving it to themselves in order that they could advance opinions and ideals matching their beliefs. And it is true that it sounds good to say that the Supreme Court has helped to decrease racial or sex-based injustices and fight for privacy and a handful of other Noble-sounding goals. The issue, though, that Scalia lays bare is that in a Democracy, it is not the place of 9 unelected, life-tenured judges, to make social advancements. The place for that is in the legislative (and to some extent the executive) branch, and that the Court's only place is to ensure that statutes pass constitutional muster, and that the way to do that is to be strict to the words and intent of the Constitution. Instead, Justices have become activists and political pawns, overreaching their bounds and authority, and in so doing, undermining the separations of power and the right of Democratic representation. Much of the gains that we have made with social reform in the last 30 years could and would have still happened, but it would be through the proper legislative channels according to the voice and will of the people.

Scalia's willingness to stand up directly and frankly to his colleagues and call them out for their obfuscations and inconsistencies fills me with hope that our future benches will heed his clarion call to return this branch of government to order and the power of law making back to the people. All of this, it turns out, represent beliefs that I kind of sort of already had, but didn't understand and couldn't enumerate. The lucidity of Scalia's opinions and the consistency of his message is refreshing and illuminating, and for this, I'm grateful to have read this work.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating work! This is a large anthology of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s legal opinion that he penned in landmark Supreme Court cases. It brought back memories of reading Supreme Court decisions back in my undergraduate days in UCLA. The subject of this work is fascinating but in light of my busy schedule with work and other readings I knew I wasn’t going to read this 592 page book anytime soon. However discovering that this book was available in audiobook format was just too good to resist. I am glad I listened to this as an audio book.
Other than the introduction, chapter one and the epilogue the bulk of the book feature Scalia’s legal writings arranged by topic grouped into chapters. Each topical chapters also feature some brief explanation and summaries from the author Kevin Ring before the court case opinions of Justice Scalia were presented. In terms of recent justices on the bench of the Supreme Court I always felt Scalia was often the most interesting and well written. Of course I’m bias as someone who is largely a political conservative. But I think the author is right in the book in making the point that there’s some great legal reasoning Scalia presents that even those who normally disagree with him can be persuaded to adopt or at minimum a force to reckon with. I do think objectively speaking Scalia is one of the more witty and colorful writer in the Supreme Court in recent memory. While at times Scalia was in the minority opinion in some court cases yet because of his writing ability and his sharp mind what he has to say is memorable and thought provoking. While I enjoyed all the topics that was featured in the book I thought the chapters on religious freedom was my favorite. Who can forget Scalia’s critique of the problem with the three prongs of the Lemon test with the following summary that the Lemon Test was a “ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried.” I also enjoyed the chapter on freedom of speech and the first chapter by the author Kevin Ring describing the judicial philosophy of Justice Scalia. I thought the first chapter was very important in clarifying to general readers concerning Scalia’s approach and explaining that Scalia’s “Originalism” was not an extreme caricature letterism of the Constitution.

[Dusty · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a dense, difficult read. I probably would not have gotten through it if I wasn’t reading with my husband, whose superpower is distilling long, complex trains of thought into a shorter and/or comprehensible idea.

After reading this, I have a lot of respect for Scalia, and that respect rests heavily on the fact that he hard-nose followed the original intents and contexts of the constitution whether or not it resulted in a decision that he personally found distasteful and upsetting. He always voted with the interpretation that best fit the constitution over his own desires. He hated the idea of ruling from the bench and thought that was way too much power to give the Judicial branch. In fact, more often than not, he butted up against his opponents not on moral grounds, but on the grounds that the court was constantly overreaching by taking decisions and power away from The People, which he felt was disastrous.

If you can parse what he’s saying, he lays out a very thorough train of logic in every opinion. I had to skip some chapters that were way over my head, but for the most part my husband was able to help me whenever I got stuck. If reading legal opinions isn’t your forte but you’re interested, I’d recommend finding someone better at following those threads to read along with you to help with the sticky parts.

[Russell DeLong · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read. I previously knew very little of Scalia other than the bare concepts of textualism and originalism, where I was suprised to find such a sarcastic, pesimistic figure behind that philosophy. It's hard not to laugh at his criticism of the court for trying to answer "What is Golf?", for example.

One thing that struck me, though, is how often (by these accounts) his opinions aligned with what a conservative would ideologically be inclined to want the laws to be. These example opinions favoured pro-death-penalty, anti-abortion, pro-DOMA, anti-DACA, positions. Even if he's consciously applying non-partisan principles of textualism and originalism, it should give us pause how closely aligned he was to the results you'd reach with partisan principles.

Originalism would certainly favour conservative outcomes (as past understandings will align with past/present values moreso than new/improved visions), where one can't help but wonder whether originalism is "liked" due to conservative predisposition just as much as the "living constitution" concept may be liked due to liberal predispositions, where both are just a systemization of partisan bias, not made less so for being ideologically consistent.

I'd ask Scalia the question which was posed to me by a Yale professor when I took an online course on the US constitution: Who oversees the impeachment trial of a vice president? A problem I see with originalism is that "What did it originally mean when it was written?" isn't always an answerable question, because scenarios can come up which the law is not written to account for, where it was not "meant" one way or another (and may not have even entered the minds of the legislators).

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a fascinating book about and by one of the best legal minds in the history of the US Supreme Court! Don't take my word for it, there are accolades to that effest from his fellow SCOTUS Justices from the more conservative to the more liberal. It was more interesting than I expected and his constitutional knowledge and adherence to what the written laws are (as opposed to what some Justices want it to be) are mixed with his well known wit in developing his supporting and dissenting opinions. His explanations for older case law and what the decisions were and their impact were enlightening. While some parts did require carefully paying attention, mostly it was easy to follow and even when you might not agree with him, he was always consistent in following what the constitution layed out for the country. Great read and highly recommended for anyone wanting some understanding of how our court system works, or is supposed to work.

[Don · Rating 5 out of 5]

reversed activism judicial, Brennan you can do anything vs right thing, deciding vote nearly 340 decisions, look for original meaning, separation of powers as good neighbors with good fences, MA government of laws not men, corrupt Independent Counsel 10 already and effects on balance of power will do great harm to republic, Dred Scott decision and Roe Wade and internment of Japanese rootless nature, no personal predilection, will lead to value judgments in confirmation hearings, sodomy and polygamy and other moral mess vs a legitimate state interest, substantive mistakes errors, obamacare apply and interpret law not draft laws as scotuscare, as established by state and a penalty or tax, no right to suicide as in England criminally liable, assisted is murder, imminently quotable.

[Danielle · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a difficult book to read. Not because the material is hard, although there were several passages I had to wade through, but because Scalia is graphic in his descriptions on occasion. I took several breathers on the passages about Partial Birth Abortions for example. I never really understood what that entailed and it was so shocking and horrific to me that I had to stop for awhile. Scalia's opinions are so articulate and well written. He makes them almost a narrative as opposed to legal briefs. I finally understand a lot of the decisions that the Supreme Court has made, especially in search and seizure rulings. I want to read more of this man's work. He is fascinating.

[Jim Gallen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed listening to “Scalia’s Court” for its insights, rational thinking and wit. Organized by legal topics, each section begins with an introduction to the issue and Scalia’s stand on it. It then consists of quotes from opinions authored by Scalia. I found issues discussed to be mind-broadening, the legal analysis to be mentally stimulating and Scalia’s writing style to be entertaining. Though a veteran lawyer, I discovered new ways to present my own arguments. Although this may be tedious and dense for readers unaccustomed to legal writing, for those with the willingness to persevere it is a not-to-be-missed treat.

[Joshua Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was a pleasure to re-read many of Justice Scalia's best opinions. I find myself agreeing with others that he is in the (very) small circle of best of the dazzlingly brilliant minds on the high court and in the (even smaller) circle of most erudite, clear, and forceful writers the legal profession has or will ever see. Reading his prose is a treat, and I am sorrowful I will not have an opportunity to savor any more bon mots he had such a gift for spinning. Five stars.

[Zbyszek Kiedacz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Doskonały Scalia, nie tak doskonały narrator pomiędzy opiniami Scalii. Pierwszy pisze tak przekonująco, że człowiek co chwilę łapie się za głowę, że właściwie to dał się przekonać do stanowiska, którego nie popiera. Drugi tak bardzo stronniczy i czołobitny (w stosunku do Scalii), że tylko człowiek wygląda końca jego fragmentu. I za to właśnie o gwiazdkę mniej.

Ale i tak warto, wszystko co Scalii tak bardzo warto. Jeśli nie dla poglądów, to dla erudycji i techniki pisania :)

[John Minster · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful anthology of Scalia's most noteworthy writings on all of the important issues, showcasing his originalist view of the Constitution, his textualism when interpreting law, his penetrative thinking, and revelational wit. Scalia was one of our greatest Justices and is dearly missed--this book shows why.

[George Polansky · Rating 5 out of 5]

Points out why we have become a A country of lawyers.

[David Swant · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book to be a hard read, but was well worth the effort. Seeing where Scalia was coming from on the issues before the Supreme Court gave real insight into the issues and the power of the Constitution. Given all the controversy with the Supreme Court justices and the Senate not even willing to consider potential replacements for Scalia at this time, I highly recommend reading this book to see what a dangerous, political game is being played out in trying to politicize the Supreme Court and to have a justices that will make law based on their own beliefs rather than judge based on what is constitutional. Everyone, and Congress in particular, should read this book.

[Nikolas Larum · Rating 5 out of 5]

Scalia was brilliant. Progressives may certainly disagree with his opinions, but having read some of SCOTUS's decisions, I don't think any of them could seriously argue with his approach. His writing was exquisite. Anyone interested in some of the most important cases of our times owes it to themselves to read this book. Highly recommended!

[Elizabeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating read. I didn't read every decision included but what I did read demonstrated that we lost an excellent jurist who deeply cared for the Constitution and its application to the people of the US.

[Emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommend. A collection of J. Scalia's leading opinions and dissents. The author does a good job explaining the background of the issue and the particular question presented to the Court. This book underscores Scalia's legacy on legal analysis for generations to come.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great summary of some of his best opinions. Most of the book are simply his opinions, but the introductions are valuable to get a greater understanding of the context.