Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived
Americans have long been inspired by Justice Scalia’s ideas, delighted by his wit, and instructed by his intelligence. He was a sought-after speaker at commencements, convocations, and events across the country. Scalia Speaks will give readers the opportunity to encounter the legendary man more fully, helping them better understand the jurisprudence that made him one of the most important justices in the Court's history and introducing them to his broader insights on faith and life.
Reviews (201)
The Guiding Light of Originalism
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.
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 wisdom In 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'
but love it already
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.
Grazie, Nino, we love and miss you!
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.
Viva
Nino, who once said he didn't even know how his name is supposed to be pronounced, has been a larger than life figure from the late 80's until his death three years ago. Perhaps the first thing to note is the respect and devotion of his colleagues who most often disagreed with him. The foreword is by Justice Ginsburg, who also worked closely with Robert Bork, and Justice Elena Kagan added that Scalia changed the way we all think about the law. While Bork and Clarence Thomas caused highly heated debates in the Senate, Scalia got through easily in 1986 and was Italian-American. The collection begins with a reflection on the Irish-Americans, such as his wife Maureen, from the Italian point of view. There's the obligatory reference to Daniel Moynihan, and a reflection on the relationship between Americans and the various places to which they trace their heritage. The area of most interest, of course, is Scalia's area of expertise, the law. Even for those who usually agree with him, his is not the only approach. For me, it would seem that if a judge believes there is a natural law, then it must weigh quite heavily on the conscience, regarding what is just. This was once not just a Catholic doctrine but a major factor for Martin Luther King's action. Scalia's approach emphasizes more the positive law and its historical context. For instance, he says that Alexander Hamilton's interpretation is weighed heavily, not because wrote the Constitution (Madison), but because "...who for Pete's sake must have understood what the thing meant". While Bork's philosophy is complex (as noted by Joe Biden in Promises to Keep), the similar Scalia tends to be more accessible. He is a religious person but makes his explanations in secular terms. One may think that he is opposed to abortion, or homosexual sodomy, but his analysis sticks to what the law means. His favorite example is flag burning, which is a terrible thing that he opposes but is allowed under his understanding of the Constitution. Faith is obviously another area of interest to Scalia. The Catholic journalist Rocco Palmo noted that he was the most revered figure, ordained or lay, in the diocese of Arlington. He was an intelligent layman, who asked the questions that prompt the ordained (such as his son Paul) to look at the mysteries from another perspective. Scalia had an exuberance and joy of life. Perhaps this was captured by Stephen Colbert at the infamous White House Correspondents' dinner with George W. Bush. Scalia had given someone the Sicilian chin. So Colbert bit his thumb at Scalia, who almost fell over in belly laughter. His mind seemed to work almost effortlessly, giving lessons in history and American civics. His devotion to Washington showed that character is more important than the brains of Jefferson, Hamilton or Madison. Scalia was widely known for his dissents. One interesting one was on the independent counsel, before the investigations of Bill Clinton and now Donald Trump. When Obergefell came out, you just knew that he would have something to say-among other things, "I would hide my head in a bag". Stanley Fish used him as an example of how to learn to write a sentence. "Interior decorating is a rock-hard science compared to psychology practiced by amateurs". This book abounds with such one-liners. There was a time before they discovered the commandment to keep holy the weekend. (Referring to Mass on Saturday afternoon or evening). Baseball is a bunch of guys standing around while nothing happens, while soccer, which we didn't have back then, has them running around back and forth while nothing happens.
I aspired to be a lawyer in my youth because it seemed like a good way to afford a Ferrari
Buy it. I aspired to be a lawyer in my youth because it seemed like a good way to afford a Ferrari. That didn't work out, but my affinity for good legal logic always lingered. Reading this book enhanced the respect for the great minds of our jurisprudence. The mind of Justice Scalia, coupled with the moral compass that directed him, is so impressive, makes one cry out in agony for his loss to our highest court.
Constitutional originalism.
Mucho respect for the compilers of this collection of speeches. Scalia represents Constitutional originalism; that is, advocacy of the exact intentions of its framers. Positives: 1) the speeches are mostly short and sweet. 2) Lots of wit. 3) I'd challenge anybody who couldn't say they gained a better understanding of American government and the Constitution. The religious stuff would be mainly for Catholics. Although Sir Thomas More (A Man for All Seasons) going to his execution on principle is an absorbing tale. SAMPLES: "One of the strengths of this great country, one of the reasons we really are a symbol of light and of hope for the world, is the way in which people of different faiths, different races, different national origins, have come together and learned—not merely to tolerate one another, because I think that is too stingy a word for what we have achieved—but to respect and love one another." "A recent survey found that only about half of the American people could name the first book of the Old Testament; only about a third could say who gave the Sermon on the Mount; and only about a fifth could name a single Old Testament prophet. A nation that used to abound with names like Ezekiel and Zebadiah now presumably thinks that the Beatitudes are a female singing group. " In England a toast is customarily presented: “Ladies and gentlemen, the Queen." It is the custom to reply to that toast with a toast “To the president of the United States.” But if one wishes to evoke the deep and enduring symbol of our nationhood and our unity as a people, it seems to me the toast ought to be “Ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution of the United States.” "Societies always mature; they never rot. This despite the twentieth century’s evidence of concentration camps and gas ovens in one of the most advanced and civilized nations of the world." It is quite impossible to forgive the line “To be great is to be misunderstood,” which has been cribbed from the same book of banalities as “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” "The cardinal sin of capitalism is greed; but the cardinal sin of socialism is power." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Reading level: College. Many 50 cent legal words and latin phrases.
Great Format To Get To Know the Real Scalia
Love the style of this book from actual speeches and public engagements. While not a wild fan of some of his ideas and positions, Scalia certainly was the type of person almost anyone would have liked and this book makes you understand why. His commitment to communicating well and with anyone willing underlies his almost fanatical curiosity about people and wanting to understand them. This book does such great justice to a Justice who, while built from the upper echelons of the best institutions, was a commoner at heart. The higher and more prestigious he got, the more emphatic he was to champion the idea of the American Dream and the idea of the level playing field. There should be more books like this about people taken from their verbal interactions in which there is little place to hide, shade or misinterpret - and no commentary telling you what they just said.
You will enjoy this book.
Justice Scalia was a great man. One who didn't try to impress people, but one who did anyway. Brilliant, but easy going. A good sense of humor along with a fine legal mind. The co-authors did a great job of putting this work together. You will enjoy this book and the Justices humor. His love of family, love of country and love of friends is evident throughout.
A mind like Scalia's doesn't come along every day
What's to say. A mind like Scalia's doesn't come along every day. The way he thinks as well as his moral bent not to mention his wit makes all these writings (speeches and letters) splendid reading. It's the kind of book you can read a few speeches and then put down. No loss of continuity because it is not a story. Each writing is self contained but you get a good impression of the man himself and what he was made of by reading them. I also thoroughly enjoyed the foreward written by his great friend Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Marvelous.
Comments
Post a Comment