Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived

When I was in law school, from time to time I would have a little intellectual banter with my classmates. We would quiz each other on the composition of our ideal United States Supreme Court if we could draft justices from any era (very exciting group of people, we lawyers). My own went something like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Hugo Black, John Marshall, Joseph Story, James Wilson, John Marshall Harlan, Charles Evans Hughes, Louis Brandeis, and Lewis Powell. If I could pick judges who never made it to the highest level, I might substitute one out for Henry Friendly, Learned Hand, or Chancellor Kent. What was notable about our game, however, is almost no one picked justices from the current Supreme Court. This is in no small part because every one of them is a bland, unoriginal writer. The only near-contemporary I might name is the recently deceased Antonin Scalia. In his later years on the bench, he became the most prominent member of the federal judiciary as he published law review articles, granted television interviews, and gave talks across the country. A collection of his speeches, Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived, has been edited and recently published by Edward Whelan and the justice’s son Christopher Scalia. It performs expertly its task of showing a more personal side of the most important justice of the last thirty years.The central theme of this book is Justice Scalia’s ardent defense of originalism. There are two closely related but distinct theories of originalism: original intent and original meaning. Original intent looks at the text of a legal document and attempts to discern what the drafters intended for it to mean; original meaning, on the other hand, takes the text and interprets it using the understanding of the words as was common to the time of the law’s creation. Justice Scalia believed in the latter. The corollary to original meaning is textualism, the idea for modern statutes that words plainly mean what they say unless a different definition is provided.Another important theme of Justice Scalia’s work was the need for judicial humility and avoidance of reading one’s own views into a statute. In a speech to the Dominican Order, the justice explained Thomas Aquinas believed any written code opposed to natural law was immoral and invalid. Natural law is the idea that there are certain moral truths discernible by anyone using right reason. Justice Scalia’s argument against this position was twofold. First, it is impossible for any one individual to always correctly discern the moral arc of the universe. Even if particular issues seem to have a clear-cut answer, this type of judging will ultimately descend into choosing one’s own personal policy preferences. Second, as a practical matter, attempting to implement an equitable interpretation of the law, rather than what the words say, leads to unpredictable results.One of the most famous examples where Justice Scalia applied this argument was abortion. For him, Roe v. Wade and its case law progeny were a tragedy, not just as a member of the Catholic faith, but also for reading into the United States Constitution a right to abortion contained nowhere in the text. Justice Scalia argued that it should be left to the legislature, as the democratically elected branch, to determine whether or not to allow abortion; if the legislature chose to permit it, Justice Scalia would apply the law despite his personal disagreement with it as a policy.Justice Scalia faced a few major criticisms while alive. One was that he allegedly applied his own judicial philosophy of originalism inconsistently. Another was the concern of many that the Constitution is a relatively bare-bones text and legislatures are often lethargic or unresponsive in crafting laws supported by broad swaths of the public, so Justice Scalia’s philosophy did not account for the challenges of the modern era. Whether those criticisms have merit is left to each individual reader, but undoubtedly Justice Scalia’s views continue to have an outsized influence on legal interpretation.Justice Scalia covered a wide range of other issues, including his general hostility to using foreign law to interpret American rights outside rare circumstances, eulogies lamenting the passage of time and friends, his pride in being a Catholic and Italian-American (emphasis on American), the value of a college education for newly-minted graduates, and an encomium on turkey hunting that may be the best defense of sportsmanship by a federal official since Herbert Hoover’s advocacy of fly fishing. One section praising his personal heroes included a piece on William Howard Taft. Taft is a footnote in presidential history always coupled with Theodore Roosevelt, but Justice Scalia pointed out his pivotal role as chief justice in lobbying for the Supreme Court to receive their own building in Washington, D.C. and supporting the passage of a bill giving the court discretionary review over its appellate docket. This was always part of my esteem for the rotund man, and I am glad Justice Scalia concurred.My favorite speech in the collection, however, may be his defense of dissenting opinions. In his later years, Justice Scalia became increasingly stinging in his critiques of the direction the Supreme Court was headed. Sometimes a dissent is a cry from the wilderness unheeded at the time and later viewed as prophetic, other times it is an expression of individual quirkiness, and in some instances it represents the position of a substantial chunk of public opinion. In each case, it is an attempt by the dissenting judge to stake out his own intellectual domain and provoke the reader into considering a new view. Few performed this job better than Justice Scalia.Sometimes he would save those criticisms of colleague’s opinions for private discussion, rather than score easy political points with public criticism. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her touching foreword, “Now and then he would call me, or stop by my chambers, to point out a slip I had made in an opinion draft. He did this, resisting circulation of a memorandum, copes to other justices, that might embarrass me. When we disagreed, my final opinion was always clearer and more convincing than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia homed in on all the soft spots, energizing me to strengthen my presentation.” With the bitter partisan bickering that plagues both the Republican and Democratic parties, it is nice to know that tucked away in the far corners of government some people still have the capacity for personal respect during instances of professional disagreement.Justice Scalia’s absence from the Supreme Court leaves it poorer. Even on occasions when one disagreed with him, the force of his character and intellectual acumen challenged his opponent’s preconceived notions and pushed them to make their own arguments sharper. This collection shows the gifted mind and warm personality that defended American law for decades.

Beautifully written....Judge Scalia is a legend and, I believe, history will show him to be one of the most honorable judges to sit onthe bench... a man of great wisdomIn reading this book, the reader is quick to relate to this great man and his great compassion for those he serves...ALL the people. This bookhas given me the desire to look for those things which I can do to become more active in everyday life to seek opporunities to serve my fellowman and woman in quiet acts of random kindness and love'

I'm just barely into this book; but love it already! My limited impression so far is that this is REAL "stuff." Real LIFE "stuff." Wisdom flowing our of the Justice's mind and lips, with personal experience, humor, .... and this great "life stuff" that I can relate to. For me, it is a book for quiet, in-interrupted (fingers crossed! :) ) time; perhaps sipping hot coffee or tea, puffing on a pipe, or sipping slowly, on a Cordial or wine. Think. Listen intently; Don't read this book with the TV blaring! Be QUIET and listen to a voice - so far, mind you, I've just read a few chapters, - a voice of wisdom! I have communicate with one Justice of our Supreme Court; but how I regret never having written to Justice Antonin Scalia! I know I would cherish his reply. And I believe I would always receive a reply from him.

Chris Scalia has made his Dad, my dear friend Nino, a very proud Papa indeed. This collection of Nino’s speeches and writings, as his good friend and colleague Justice Ginsburg writes in her Foreword, confirms Nino’s indelible stamp on Supreme Court jurisprudence, indeed one of the best if not the best Justice in our Nation’s history.Chris reveals the good man his Dad was, a remarkable family, Nino’s loving wife Maureen McCarthy, who made Nino, the proud Italian American, eligible to become a member of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick! Reading this wonderful book is bittersweet for those of us lucky to be in his company and to have him as a very dear friend. It is a book for all, irrespective of whether one is a lawyer. To understand our Nation and the rule of law, this is a must read, for Nino was truly a man for all seasons.

Not being an American, nor a lawyer, my standing in reviewing this book might be brought into question. I do not share some of the leanings that Justice Scalia exhibited; but having noted elsewhere that he had been misquoted by an opponent I wanted to see what he had actually said, and came to realise that he was a superb writer and a gifted speaker. It is curious - perhaps even a little perverse - that the allegation is made that he was a conservative driving his own agenda. Repeatedly he made the point that he would uphold whatever laws Congress passed, whatever his personal feelings, provided those laws conformed to the Constitution.The book paints a picture of a considerable intellect, a devoted family man, and a writer of some style. I especially enjoyed the pieces about his early life which vibrate with colour. Well worth reading even if you disagreed with him - and, in fact, you may find as I did that you agreed with him more than you expected.

Il testo è un'antologia di discorsi resi, nell'arco di diversi decenni, da Scalia. I temi si ripetono, nel senso che si parla quasi sempre della teoria dell'originalismo (interpretazione del testo di legge secondo il pensiero di chi lo scrisse, a prescindere dall'evoluzione delle convinzioni della società) a cui Scalia aderiva, e di cui era divenuto tra i più autorevoli sostenitori. E' comunque un testo interessante, di agevole lettura. Consigliato a chi abbia interesse per il diritto costituzionale, pur senza essere necessariamente un "addetto ai lavori". Il linguaggio è infatti discorsivo (si tratta sovente di interventi ad eventi di non giuristi) ed il testo è privo di riferimenti specifici ai testi di legge (eccezione fatta per qualche articolo della costituzione americana).

I’m definitely a person who believed in a living constitution and justice Scalia definitely wasn’t. Reading this book, I definitely understand his side of the argument. I don’t think he has managed to convert me, but I have no doubt of I had ever had the chance of meeting him in person, his oration and grasp of history would change my mind.You may definitely dispute what the man says, but he comes across as a man who is honest to his belief and sticks to it.

A wonderful book. I could hear him speaking as I read his words. Funny and inciteful. I learned about notable cases and loved the way he viewed the constitution. I will read it again.

Excelente livro, em especial para os profissionais do direito, com destaque para as opiniões do autor acerca dos limites da interpretação constititicional, que, para ele, devem ser restritos.