Scan barcode
jedwardsusc's review against another edition
4.0
Scalia's theory of Constiutional originalism was inconsistently applied, and, when he chose to make use of it, the results were often silly or damaging or both. I could never figure the degree to which Scalia (with his obvious intelligence) recognized the weaknesses and gaps in his own narrative about originalism, and this collection doesn't do much to clear up my confusion.
What does come through are Scalia's considerable skills as a speaker. He projects warmth, intelligence, and good humor throughout. It's a well-curated collection that offers a compelling glimpse into Scalia's public persona away from the bench.
What does come through are Scalia's considerable skills as a speaker. He projects warmth, intelligence, and good humor throughout. It's a well-curated collection that offers a compelling glimpse into Scalia's public persona away from the bench.
radbear76's review against another edition
5.0
I never would have picked this book up if I hadn't received it as a gift from my Dad. I don't agree with Judge Scalia's beliefs or opinions on most issues. But it was refreshing to read how he arrived at his decisions and his concept of the Constitution in his own words. I still don't agree with him but Judge Scalia raised some very valid points that really made me stop and think about my own beliefs and how I arrived at them. His speeches also allow his wit and humor to shine through. Reading this book was time well spent.
bearlythinking's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
funny
informative
slow-paced
3.5
colin_cox's review against another edition
3.0
I was attracted to Scalia Speaks for two reasons: first, Justice Scalia is an intriguing figure. I have read several of his dissents, and unlike the small portion of legal scholarship I have read, they burst with clarity, humor, and an unmistakable style. The second reason I was attracted to this book reflects my growing interest in the law. Before his death, Scalia became a celebrity in contemporary politics, particularly on the right (on the left, Ruth Bader Ginsburg occupies a similar position). He developed a reputation for judicial contrarianism best expressed by his approach to Constitutional interpretation: Originalism. He defines Originalism multiple times in Scalia Speaks, but his definition on page 201 is the clearest: "The Constitution, as you know, contains a number of broad provisions...Originalism gives to those terms the meaning they were understood to have when the people adopted them" (201). Simply put, Originalism sees the Constitution as a reflection of the historical and cultural period that produced it. Therefore, Originalism is an ethnolinguistic approach to Constitutional interpretation that appears less interested in the founders' intentions and more interested in how the culture that constituted this moment in history perceived and understood the language of the Constitution.
If I didn't think about it too much, I might find this line of reasoning seductive. The problem, of course, is that Originalism presents a myriad of interpretative challenges. According to the tenets of Originalism, as described by Scalia, a Supreme Court Justice must also be a historian, a linguistic, a cultural anthropologist, and a legal scholar. After reading Scalia Speaks, I don't doubt the man's brilliance and intelligence, but that's a tall order. In addition, this approach seems to make a troubling a priori assumption about the moral and ethical supremacy of the moment in history that produced our Constitution. Scalia bypasses this criticism by suggesting that the Supreme Court need not have broad, sweeping authority to enact change. If the people want change, then they should use the vote rather than appeal to the Supreme Court. Once again, this position makes a troubling assumption because it believes the vote has more power than it does. This position ignores the unequivocal efforts to suppress and delegitimize vast swaths of constituents both now and in the past. It would be nice to think the vote is as powerful as Scalia purports it to be.
But to the credit of book's editors, Scalia Speaks represents Scalia's charm and humor, and while I find some of his positions unsettling, I cannot help but wonder if the limits of the public speech may explain some of the problems I have with the book. That is not to say that public talks cannot be thorough and rigorous because they certainly can. Most of these speeches, however, feel frustratingly undeveloped and repetitive.
If I didn't think about it too much, I might find this line of reasoning seductive. The problem, of course, is that Originalism presents a myriad of interpretative challenges. According to the tenets of Originalism, as described by Scalia, a Supreme Court Justice must also be a historian, a linguistic, a cultural anthropologist, and a legal scholar. After reading Scalia Speaks, I don't doubt the man's brilliance and intelligence, but that's a tall order. In addition, this approach seems to make a troubling a priori assumption about the moral and ethical supremacy of the moment in history that produced our Constitution. Scalia bypasses this criticism by suggesting that the Supreme Court need not have broad, sweeping authority to enact change. If the people want change, then they should use the vote rather than appeal to the Supreme Court. Once again, this position makes a troubling assumption because it believes the vote has more power than it does. This position ignores the unequivocal efforts to suppress and delegitimize vast swaths of constituents both now and in the past. It would be nice to think the vote is as powerful as Scalia purports it to be.
But to the credit of book's editors, Scalia Speaks represents Scalia's charm and humor, and while I find some of his positions unsettling, I cannot help but wonder if the limits of the public speech may explain some of the problems I have with the book. That is not to say that public talks cannot be thorough and rigorous because they certainly can. Most of these speeches, however, feel frustratingly undeveloped and repetitive.
muhly22's review against another edition
5.0
I've long admired Scalia the Supreme Court Judge. He insisted that judges should follow the law, should determine what the law said and apply that to the case in front of them. That is the only way to be a judge. The question for a judge should never be "What should the law be?" A judge must reach his conclusions regardless of the practical outcome of the case.
But while this book does contain some of Scalia's judicial philosophy, it's more of an insight to Scalia the man. He was a faithful, loyal, loving, caring, wise and, believe it or not, very funny man. All of that comes through in these speeches, given on a variety of occasions to a variety of groups. Anybody, whether a judge, a lawyer, or somebody who no interest in anything of the sort, will find something in this book to inspire them to be a better person.
I couldn't recommend this book more.
But while this book does contain some of Scalia's judicial philosophy, it's more of an insight to Scalia the man. He was a faithful, loyal, loving, caring, wise and, believe it or not, very funny man. All of that comes through in these speeches, given on a variety of occasions to a variety of groups. Anybody, whether a judge, a lawyer, or somebody who no interest in anything of the sort, will find something in this book to inspire them to be a better person.
I couldn't recommend this book more.
simonmee's review against another edition
1.0
Scalia Speaks is a compilation of 48 speeches given by Scalia to sympathetic audiences about whatever Scalia thought was cool, like how cosplaying as a soldier gave Scalia essential insights into the moral value of courage, that the Nazis were socialists, and how it is irrational to to reject a priori, with no investigation, the possibility of miracles in general, and of Jesus Christ’s resurrection in particular, as though it's my job to fully investigate every occurrence of stigmata (another Scalia hobby horse).
Death by a thousand repetitions
If the compilers of these speeches really thought nothing less than forty-eight of Scalia's musings merited inclusion, then I guess I've got to treat everything as critical. It must be vital to read at least 15 different references to how homosexual rights aren't in the Constitution, which is about 15 more times than Native American rights come up. Apparently there's some pretty important distinctions between the Catholic Irish immigrant experience and the Catholic Italian immigrant experience. As for the African American experience, good luck finding a single mention of them in Scalia's speech about who did the actual work on George Washington's farm estate. Quite some chutzpah to refer to Washington's commitments as occasionally stretching to manual labor.
There were forty-eight different chances to surprise us with the breadth of Scalia's knowledge and willingness to talk about experiences outside of his own. Yet, Scalia's son and Whelan went hard on Scalia as a man whose intellectual interests start with the Federalist Papers and end with Tocqueville's Democracy in America, excluding the part where Tocqueville said slavery seemed like a pretty bad thing. Forty-eight speeches to taunt us with the narrowness of Scalia's vision.
Nearer, My God, to Thee
A Catholic doctor cannot, consistently with his faith, perform an abortion or assist a suicide.
Scalia Speaks is clear that Scalia was a deeply religious man. What's more, religion is good for government:
What I am saying, however, is that it is contrary to our founding principles to insist that government be hostile to religion, or even to insist (as my court, alas, has done in word though not in deed) that government cannot favor religion over nonreligion.
...and whatever, I guess. The United States has unique cultural touchstones that aren't worth sifting through for the sake of forty-eight speeches.
What is relevant is that Scalia states that his religious beliefs don't affect his actual judicial decisions because there is no there is no Catholic way to interpret a text, analyze a historical tradition, or discern the meaning and legitimacy of prior judicial decisions, along with:
That is, by the way, not the position that Catholic judges are in with respect to abortion. They in no way participate in the killing of the baby. They merely hold, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s determination of what natural law requires, that the government cannot prevent that killing.
It's not the place here to debate whether particular decisions by Scalia were religiously influenced, but there's an arrogance to Scalia's position that:
(1) a consistent Catholic can only carry out particular jobs in certain ways; whereas
(2) a judge is not similarily constrained by such religious beliefs and all they do is a straight interpretation of the law as it is.
I'm uncomfortable about these positions, independently and in combination. It seems pretty wild that Scalia can make broad statements about what it takes in one's job to comply with particular belief systems while pompously holding himself above it all.
Original way to make it as I say
Scalia is the fountainhead of "originalism", a method of interpretation of the Constitution and other laws. Scalia sets it out in a few speeches...
...and I'm not going to discuss them. These speeches are given at the softest of forums. Scalia gets to say what he wants how he wants. He gets to summarise DC v Heller as though it was a lay up, not a series of contortions to get round a clearly conflicting precedent. He doesn't have to deal with a case like Castle Rock vs Gonzales, where he cuts pretty sharply across originalism while pretending otherwise. Nor does the collection mention the massively impactful Citizens United v FEC, which he wrote a concurrence for. Seems like that case's legacy isn't an originalist one.
If you think "orginalists" adhere to the original meaning of the relevant documents and don't engage in judicial activism, fine, tuck yourself into bed at night with a hot cocoa while reading Scalia dancing in the end zone about how brilliant he is. I'm not interested in the detail. Better people than me have punched holes in it. Scalia probably spoke on those cases further at some stage, but if the collators of his speeches aren’t going to mention them, over how homosexuality is definitely not in the Constitution, why should I be obliged to engage in good faith with his interpretive approach?
What I would say is that this collection confirms that Scalia was an extremely religious, return to (his idea of) tradition kind of guy with a narrow perspective on the history that he claimed informed his decisions. Conservative thought has being defining the terms of debate for a while now, with liberals unnecessarily conceding things such as Roe v Wade getting the "right" result by a "bad" decision. Scalia Speaks is another blast in that direction. Don't feel you have to accept its premise.
Death by a thousand repetitions
If the compilers of these speeches really thought nothing less than forty-eight of Scalia's musings merited inclusion, then I guess I've got to treat everything as critical. It must be vital to read at least 15 different references to how homosexual rights aren't in the Constitution, which is about 15 more times than Native American rights come up. Apparently there's some pretty important distinctions between the Catholic Irish immigrant experience and the Catholic Italian immigrant experience. As for the African American experience, good luck finding a single mention of them in Scalia's speech about who did the actual work on George Washington's farm estate. Quite some chutzpah to refer to Washington's commitments as occasionally stretching to manual labor.
There were forty-eight different chances to surprise us with the breadth of Scalia's knowledge and willingness to talk about experiences outside of his own. Yet, Scalia's son and Whelan went hard on Scalia as a man whose intellectual interests start with the Federalist Papers and end with Tocqueville's Democracy in America, excluding the part where Tocqueville said slavery seemed like a pretty bad thing. Forty-eight speeches to taunt us with the narrowness of Scalia's vision.
Nearer, My God, to Thee
A Catholic doctor cannot, consistently with his faith, perform an abortion or assist a suicide.
Scalia Speaks is clear that Scalia was a deeply religious man. What's more, religion is good for government:
What I am saying, however, is that it is contrary to our founding principles to insist that government be hostile to religion, or even to insist (as my court, alas, has done in word though not in deed) that government cannot favor religion over nonreligion.
...and whatever, I guess. The United States has unique cultural touchstones that aren't worth sifting through for the sake of forty-eight speeches.
What is relevant is that Scalia states that his religious beliefs don't affect his actual judicial decisions because there is no there is no Catholic way to interpret a text, analyze a historical tradition, or discern the meaning and legitimacy of prior judicial decisions, along with:
That is, by the way, not the position that Catholic judges are in with respect to abortion. They in no way participate in the killing of the baby. They merely hold, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s determination of what natural law requires, that the government cannot prevent that killing.
It's not the place here to debate whether particular decisions by Scalia were religiously influenced, but there's an arrogance to Scalia's position that:
(1) a consistent Catholic can only carry out particular jobs in certain ways; whereas
(2) a judge is not similarily constrained by such religious beliefs and all they do is a straight interpretation of the law as it is.
I'm uncomfortable about these positions, independently and in combination. It seems pretty wild that Scalia can make broad statements about what it takes in one's job to comply with particular belief systems while pompously holding himself above it all.
Original way to make it as I say
Scalia is the fountainhead of "originalism", a method of interpretation of the Constitution and other laws. Scalia sets it out in a few speeches...
...and I'm not going to discuss them. These speeches are given at the softest of forums. Scalia gets to say what he wants how he wants. He gets to summarise DC v Heller as though it was a lay up, not a series of contortions to get round a clearly conflicting precedent. He doesn't have to deal with a case like Castle Rock vs Gonzales, where he cuts pretty sharply across originalism while pretending otherwise. Nor does the collection mention the massively impactful Citizens United v FEC, which he wrote a concurrence for. Seems like that case's legacy isn't an originalist one.
If you think "orginalists" adhere to the original meaning of the relevant documents and don't engage in judicial activism, fine, tuck yourself into bed at night with a hot cocoa while reading Scalia dancing in the end zone about how brilliant he is. I'm not interested in the detail. Better people than me have punched holes in it. Scalia probably spoke on those cases further at some stage, but if the collators of his speeches aren’t going to mention them, over how homosexuality is definitely not in the Constitution, why should I be obliged to engage in good faith with his interpretive approach?
What I would say is that this collection confirms that Scalia was an extremely religious, return to (his idea of) tradition kind of guy with a narrow perspective on the history that he claimed informed his decisions. Conservative thought has being defining the terms of debate for a while now, with liberals unnecessarily conceding things such as Roe v Wade getting the "right" result by a "bad" decision. Scalia Speaks is another blast in that direction. Don't feel you have to accept its premise.
kellynoyes's review against another edition
4.0
This book is a collection of speeches by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Although I do not agree with Scalia's politics and many of his votes on the Court, I have always found him to be smart and funny, and this book confirmed both of those thoughts. The books delves into his thinking on issues of statutory and Constitutional interpretation and lays out his position in a convincing manner, although his faith in democracy truly expressing the will of the people gives more faith to the fairness of the voting process than I have. I enjoyed thinking deeply about the issues he discusses, using parts of my brain that are not often used in every day commercial law practice, and reminding me (fondly, because I am a nerd) of my constitutional law classes in law school. There is quite a bit of repetition here, and I could have done without the eulogy portion at the end of the book, but overall for me it was an entertaining and thought-provoking read.
holtfan's review against another edition
5.0
Any author - or in this case, speaker - who compliments C.S. Lewis and quotes G.K. Chesterton will win my regard. However in this wonderful compilation of speeches, Justice Scalia does more than honor their memory; he becomes their intellectual successor. Reading this collection, I easily imagined Justice Scalia joining the Inklings at the Eagle and Child. Although topically he addresses very different things, the attitude of academic rigor and spiritual wonder comes across the same. He shared their worldview.
I gained a great deal of insight from this book. It started off a little rough and probably could have ended stronger, but everything in the middle was wonderful. This is Justice Scalia speaking to the common man on subjects ranging from President Taft to Thomas More. He brings wit and wisdom to every address. My favorites were his commencement speeches.
This is one I will be coming back to. There is too much wisdom to glean from this book to read it only once!
I gained a great deal of insight from this book. It started off a little rough and probably could have ended stronger, but everything in the middle was wonderful. This is Justice Scalia speaking to the common man on subjects ranging from President Taft to Thomas More. He brings wit and wisdom to every address. My favorites were his commencement speeches.
This is one I will be coming back to. There is too much wisdom to glean from this book to read it only once!
mariabeaucage's review
I’m no fan of Scalia’s politics or his legal philosophy, but his writing and speeches will never not be hilarious and engaging.
More...