What do you think?
Rate this book
Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived
This definitive collection of beloved Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's finest speeches covers topics as varied as the law, faith, virtue, pastimes, and his heroes and friends. Featuring a foreword by longtime friend Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and an intimate introduction by his youngest son, this volume includes dozens of speeches, some deeply personal, that have never before been published. Christopher J. Scalia and the Justice's former law clerk Edward Whelan selected the speeches.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.
391 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 3, 2017
About the author
Antonin Scalia
27 books107 followersAmerican 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...
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...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 168 reviews
October 20, 2017
This book is co-authored by Scalia’s son, Christopher J. Scalia, and is a collection of Scalia’s speeches on legal issues, friends and a variety of topics. The book is designed for the general reader.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the foreword to the book. Scalia and Ginsburg were great friends and fellow opera fans, but one was a liberal the other a conservative.
Scalia was an articulate speaker who had a way with words. He also had a great sense of humor. The book is well written and edited. Christopher has chosen speeches by Antonin that allows the reader to gain further insight into the man as well as the jurist. The book is broken down into categories such as friends, law, faith and so on. The sections I enjoyed the most were the speeches about being an Italian-American and the difference between an American and an European. Of course, I enjoyed most of the sections but those two gave me much to ruminate on. I have read all of Scalia’s books and biographies, therefore, I am familiar with his philosophy of constitutional originalism and his being a textualist in statutory interpretation. I know him to be a master of the English language, but from this book I learned he was also a gifted grammarian. That will make a great trivia question. I may not always agree with what he said but I love to read or hear what he had to say. Scalia was able to state his reasons in a succinct manner and in beautiful prose without the use of rhetoric. This will make a great reference book.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is fourteen hours long. Christopher J. Scalia does a good job narrating the book.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the foreword to the book. Scalia and Ginsburg were great friends and fellow opera fans, but one was a liberal the other a conservative.
Scalia was an articulate speaker who had a way with words. He also had a great sense of humor. The book is well written and edited. Christopher has chosen speeches by Antonin that allows the reader to gain further insight into the man as well as the jurist. The book is broken down into categories such as friends, law, faith and so on. The sections I enjoyed the most were the speeches about being an Italian-American and the difference between an American and an European. Of course, I enjoyed most of the sections but those two gave me much to ruminate on. I have read all of Scalia’s books and biographies, therefore, I am familiar with his philosophy of constitutional originalism and his being a textualist in statutory interpretation. I know him to be a master of the English language, but from this book I learned he was also a gifted grammarian. That will make a great trivia question. I may not always agree with what he said but I love to read or hear what he had to say. Scalia was able to state his reasons in a succinct manner and in beautiful prose without the use of rhetoric. This will make a great reference book.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is fourteen hours long. Christopher J. Scalia does a good job narrating the book.
July 26, 2020
Excellent! Note this is not a collection of Justice Scalia's Supreme Court opinions (which would make an excellent book), but rather a diverse collection of speeches he has given over the years which reveal his reflections, in the words of the subtitle, on Law, Faith and Life Well Lived.
The forward by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose judicial philosophy could not be more different than that of Antonin Scalia, should be a lesson for all of us in the present time. In part she says: "If our friendship [hers and Justice Scalia's] encourages others to appreciate that some very good people have ideas with which we disagree, and that, despite differences, people of goodwill can pull together for the well-being of the institutions we serve and our country, I will be overjoyed, as I am confident Justice Scalia would be."
Oh that we could heed that advice.
The forward by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose judicial philosophy could not be more different than that of Antonin Scalia, should be a lesson for all of us in the present time. In part she says: "If our friendship [hers and Justice Scalia's] encourages others to appreciate that some very good people have ideas with which we disagree, and that, despite differences, people of goodwill can pull together for the well-being of the institutions we serve and our country, I will be overjoyed, as I am confident Justice Scalia would be."
Oh that we could heed that advice.
March 24, 2024
2024 Review
I challenged myself in 2024 to re-read the books that impacted me most in my 20s.
And...I don't think this one is going to make the final list. Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges probably better reflects Scalia's influence on me. But I still loved this collection. It is one that you can read and re-read and probably always find something a little bit different.
I was particularly struck by his law school commencement speech to the University of Dayton Law School on "The Legal Profession."
I listened to this re-read on audio so I might get a few words wrong, but the gist of his quote was striking:
"Having removed the false premise that one of the characteristics of lawyers is damnation, let me turn to what I think the true characteristics are. First, I suppose, there is a compulsive precision. You've already been exposed to that a good deal in law school. Don't think it gets any better once you get out into practice. One of the distinctive skills of our profession is to discern ambiguities, inaccuracies, and insufficiencies that would not occur to the ordinary layman...Suggestion, illusion, and thus to some extent imprecision is the very life of poetry and the very death of the law. Ladies and gentlemen, if you aspire to be poets, get out now."
And: "A second characteristic of our profession is a certain worldly wisdom. Or, if you wish to put it pejoratively, cynicism...How is it that we are this way? I at least have lived a very sheltered life. The answer of course is that we are so worldly wise because we have seen so much of the world vicariously through the innumerable cases we have read covering the entire spectrum of human experience...And we have not just learned about life, we have learned about people. People at their worst. By in large human fault and human perfidy are what the cases are about. We have seen the careless, the criminal, the profligate, the foolhardy parade across the pages of the case reports. We have seen evil punished and virtue rewarded. But we have also seen prudent evil flourish and foolish virtue fail....Expect to find here no more a dreamer than a poet."
As a lawyer of a couple years now, I found in these two comparisons and an answer I didn't even know I was asking. But you should really read the passages (and his conclusion) for yourself. Because despite his rather depressing points (at least, depressing if you want to be a poet), he really does manage to bring hope and charm as he describes what the legal profession is and could be.
2018 Review
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 challenged myself in 2024 to re-read the books that impacted me most in my 20s.
And...I don't think this one is going to make the final list. Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges probably better reflects Scalia's influence on me. But I still loved this collection. It is one that you can read and re-read and probably always find something a little bit different.
I was particularly struck by his law school commencement speech to the University of Dayton Law School on "The Legal Profession."
I listened to this re-read on audio so I might get a few words wrong, but the gist of his quote was striking:
"Having removed the false premise that one of the characteristics of lawyers is damnation, let me turn to what I think the true characteristics are. First, I suppose, there is a compulsive precision. You've already been exposed to that a good deal in law school. Don't think it gets any better once you get out into practice. One of the distinctive skills of our profession is to discern ambiguities, inaccuracies, and insufficiencies that would not occur to the ordinary layman...Suggestion, illusion, and thus to some extent imprecision is the very life of poetry and the very death of the law. Ladies and gentlemen, if you aspire to be poets, get out now."
And: "A second characteristic of our profession is a certain worldly wisdom. Or, if you wish to put it pejoratively, cynicism...How is it that we are this way? I at least have lived a very sheltered life. The answer of course is that we are so worldly wise because we have seen so much of the world vicariously through the innumerable cases we have read covering the entire spectrum of human experience...And we have not just learned about life, we have learned about people. People at their worst. By in large human fault and human perfidy are what the cases are about. We have seen the careless, the criminal, the profligate, the foolhardy parade across the pages of the case reports. We have seen evil punished and virtue rewarded. But we have also seen prudent evil flourish and foolish virtue fail....Expect to find here no more a dreamer than a poet."
As a lawyer of a couple years now, I found in these two comparisons and an answer I didn't even know I was asking. But you should really read the passages (and his conclusion) for yourself. Because despite his rather depressing points (at least, depressing if you want to be a poet), he really does manage to bring hope and charm as he describes what the legal profession is and could be.
2018 Review
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!
October 16, 2017
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was an extraordinary and influential man well known for his conservatism, discipline, strong opinions and hard working nature. He also had a deep faith, a gift passed on to his nine children. On a more personal note, his son, Paul was a much admired priest at my local parish, most recently appointed vicar for clergy by Arlington’s bishop.
This book is a compilation of Scalia’s speeches covering a variety of topics. They are entertaining, profound and at times deeply personal. I thoroughly enjoyed learning more about this legendary man who put God, family, civility and the Constitution at the forefront. His insight, stories and tributes are truly inspirational and delightful to read.
This book is a compilation of Scalia’s speeches covering a variety of topics. They are entertaining, profound and at times deeply personal. I thoroughly enjoyed learning more about this legendary man who put God, family, civility and the Constitution at the forefront. His insight, stories and tributes are truly inspirational and delightful to read.
December 24, 2017
It says a lot about Antonin Scalia that fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose views are typically the polar opposite of his, wrote a warm and heartfelt Foreward to this collection of his speeches.
Another of his colleagues, Samuel Alito, had this to say in a Yale Law Review tribute:
"For those of us who had the privilege of knowing Nino, as we called him, what will come to mind first are his human qualities. He was a delightful friend and colleague. He had a big personality; I think he filled every room he entered. He was charming, engaging, voluble, learned, witty, impatient, and nearly always very frank."
This was a wide-ranging and very readable collection of a number of Scalia's speeches, compiled and edited by one of his sons, Christopher, along with Edward Whelan, who clerked for Scalia. The speeches are grouped under several broad headings, including "On the American People and Ethnicity", "On Living and Learning", "On Faith", "On Law', "On Virtue and the Public Good", and "On Heroes and Friends". Scalia was well-known for being a constitutional originalist, and that passionate view comes through often in his speeches.
I wasn't aware that Scalia and his wife had nine children, and that he was a devout Catholic. I also hadn't realized that his tenure on the Supreme Court was three decades long. He was a man of much learning, humor, insight, influence and devotion, and I enjoyed each of these speeches. The speeches in the "Law" section can take a bit more effort (thought certainly lucid and understandable), but are well worth it. Also, once in a while a speech seemed like it ended very abruptly, which made me wonder about possible editing issues.
Still, a very enjoyable read. Scalia was clearly one of the great Supreme Court justices, and a man who understood and lived the principle of civil discourse.
Another of his colleagues, Samuel Alito, had this to say in a Yale Law Review tribute:
"For those of us who had the privilege of knowing Nino, as we called him, what will come to mind first are his human qualities. He was a delightful friend and colleague. He had a big personality; I think he filled every room he entered. He was charming, engaging, voluble, learned, witty, impatient, and nearly always very frank."
This was a wide-ranging and very readable collection of a number of Scalia's speeches, compiled and edited by one of his sons, Christopher, along with Edward Whelan, who clerked for Scalia. The speeches are grouped under several broad headings, including "On the American People and Ethnicity", "On Living and Learning", "On Faith", "On Law', "On Virtue and the Public Good", and "On Heroes and Friends". Scalia was well-known for being a constitutional originalist, and that passionate view comes through often in his speeches.
I wasn't aware that Scalia and his wife had nine children, and that he was a devout Catholic. I also hadn't realized that his tenure on the Supreme Court was three decades long. He was a man of much learning, humor, insight, influence and devotion, and I enjoyed each of these speeches. The speeches in the "Law" section can take a bit more effort (thought certainly lucid and understandable), but are well worth it. Also, once in a while a speech seemed like it ended very abruptly, which made me wonder about possible editing issues.
Still, a very enjoyable read. Scalia was clearly one of the great Supreme Court justices, and a man who understood and lived the principle of civil discourse.
August 22, 2017
I was drawn to this book. As a political junkie and ardent supporter of originialism in constitutional interpretation, I wanted to read in depth about this particular Justice. Antonin Scalia was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was appointed in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan. He was considered to be a core member of the conservative wing of the court.
I was happy to see that his son, as well as, his former law clerk saw fit to honor him by assembling some of his most important speeches. The book is broken down into a wide range of categories (i.e. On virtue and the public good, On heroes and friends, On Law, On Faith).
As I read each speech I found myself re-reading them. Justice Scalia's writings are not to be read or interpreted at first blush. The deeper meanings are only seen when one thoughtfully digests the sum of the parts. To say he was well written is an understatement. He was a genius in the use of the English language. He explains his thoughts, feelings, and love for the Constitution and our Country beautifully. I have bookmarked several speeches to read again, as I am not sure I have gained the full value of it's meaning.
This book is wonderfully insightful. While it does not deeply delve into his family life or his deep friendships or his love of travel, it does show us a great thinker. He was an ardent Historian as well as an accomplished Justice whose wisdom and presence will never be seen on the high court again.
This book is a must read for those interested in Justice Scalia's views, but also by those who love great writing. You do not have to subscribe to his conservative views to appreciate what he has to say and the way he chooses to say it. I will say that the book must be read in parts, slowly, for the reader to fully savor the meaning of Justice Scalia's writings. His depth of thought while composing these speeches speaks of the learned person he was. His wisdom will surely be missed.
Many thanks to NetGalley and to Crown Forum, New York for an ARC.
I was happy to see that his son, as well as, his former law clerk saw fit to honor him by assembling some of his most important speeches. The book is broken down into a wide range of categories (i.e. On virtue and the public good, On heroes and friends, On Law, On Faith).
As I read each speech I found myself re-reading them. Justice Scalia's writings are not to be read or interpreted at first blush. The deeper meanings are only seen when one thoughtfully digests the sum of the parts. To say he was well written is an understatement. He was a genius in the use of the English language. He explains his thoughts, feelings, and love for the Constitution and our Country beautifully. I have bookmarked several speeches to read again, as I am not sure I have gained the full value of it's meaning.
This book is wonderfully insightful. While it does not deeply delve into his family life or his deep friendships or his love of travel, it does show us a great thinker. He was an ardent Historian as well as an accomplished Justice whose wisdom and presence will never be seen on the high court again.
This book is a must read for those interested in Justice Scalia's views, but also by those who love great writing. You do not have to subscribe to his conservative views to appreciate what he has to say and the way he chooses to say it. I will say that the book must be read in parts, slowly, for the reader to fully savor the meaning of Justice Scalia's writings. His depth of thought while composing these speeches speaks of the learned person he was. His wisdom will surely be missed.
Many thanks to NetGalley and to Crown Forum, New York for an ARC.
February 26, 2018
Ronald Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia to SCOTUS, and that is almost enough reason for me to regard Scalia as a hero. And while I am no legal scholar (although, maybe I will change that autodidactically), for the next twenty or so years, as I followed in SCOTUS in a cursory kind of way, he always seemed to land the way I wanted things to go in major cases. The description I heard of his strict constructionist legal philosophy (I have subsequently learn this to be an utterly inaccurate label.) appealed to me deeply. Then 2008 came along, I actually read every word of the majority opinion he wrote for Heller v. D.C., and Antonin Scalia became an intellectual hero to me. It is not just that I liked the disposition set out by the ruling, but his thinking and philosophy are inspiring. I have read more of his opinions and watched hours of interviews with him. He became one of the figures in American history that I most admire. I cannot express how saddened I was to hear of his death a couple of years ago. When I heard his son was publishing Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived, I had to read it.
This book fully lived up to my high expectations.It has possibly been the most thought provoking secular read of my life. I have learn so much in this book. I have understood afresh the appalling limits of my knowledge. I have developed a hunger to study the law. While reading these speeches, the volume of things I don’t know but want to know once again daunted me. The amount of things I don’t yet know that I want to know is even bigger. I have written copious notes on the end papers and in the margins—half of them detailing ideas, questions, and legal cases I want to explore. I am experiencing all this because of a book of speeches?
Scalia’s insights and ideas contain enormous wisdom, rationality, and faith. This book can change perceptions. It certainly has changed my philosophical parameters and encouraged me to be a better man. Amazing book.
This book fully lived up to my high expectations.It has possibly been the most thought provoking secular read of my life. I have learn so much in this book. I have understood afresh the appalling limits of my knowledge. I have developed a hunger to study the law. While reading these speeches, the volume of things I don’t know but want to know once again daunted me. The amount of things I don’t yet know that I want to know is even bigger. I have written copious notes on the end papers and in the margins—half of them detailing ideas, questions, and legal cases I want to explore. I am experiencing all this because of a book of speeches?
Scalia’s insights and ideas contain enormous wisdom, rationality, and faith. This book can change perceptions. It certainly has changed my philosophical parameters and encouraged me to be a better man. Amazing book.
December 21, 2017
A great collection of some of Scalia's speeches and writings. The only reason this is 4 stars instead of 5 stars is because of the substantial overlap in substance between some of the speeches.
August 10, 2021
I personally find Justice Scalia to be one of the most hypocritical and ideologically driven conservative justices in the Court's history. He calls himself a "faint-hearted originalist" to defend his non-originalist decisions with ludicrous results, but I would argue that it also applies to how often he conveniently abandons original public meaning to arrive at conservative outcomes. And any time anyone accuses him of utilizing originalism solely because it tends to support right-wing policy goals, he simply cites his opinion upholding the right to burn the American flag, much like how those who wave the Confederate flag point to their one black friend as proof that they aren't racist.
Nonetheless, this collection of speeches provides incredibly lucid insight into Scalia's judicial philosophy. His writing is clear, sharp, and witty, accessible to anyone with an interest in Supreme Court jurisprudence. Only Scalia could suggest the absurd idea that the Warren Court was the end of civility in judicial politics in a halfway persuasive manner.
A few years ago, Googling the term "originalism" would yield a result on the first page that called originalism a conservative farce designed to instill legitimacy in decisions affirming right-wing policy goals. Today, that Google result is gone. Originalism is now considered a serious method of interpretation, and I believe we owe Justice Scalia for bringing it out of fringe corners of jurisprudential discourse and into the mainstream. This book shows that originalism is a philosophy that ought to be taken seriously. It is a theory with normative merit, a theory that a great deal of our federal judiciary adheres to, and a theory with historical and moral nuance. Whether you love or despise his legacy, "Scalia Speaks" is for conservative devotees and diehard liberals alike, and it deserves to be read cover-to-cover.
Nonetheless, this collection of speeches provides incredibly lucid insight into Scalia's judicial philosophy. His writing is clear, sharp, and witty, accessible to anyone with an interest in Supreme Court jurisprudence. Only Scalia could suggest the absurd idea that the Warren Court was the end of civility in judicial politics in a halfway persuasive manner.
A few years ago, Googling the term "originalism" would yield a result on the first page that called originalism a conservative farce designed to instill legitimacy in decisions affirming right-wing policy goals. Today, that Google result is gone. Originalism is now considered a serious method of interpretation, and I believe we owe Justice Scalia for bringing it out of fringe corners of jurisprudential discourse and into the mainstream. This book shows that originalism is a philosophy that ought to be taken seriously. It is a theory with normative merit, a theory that a great deal of our federal judiciary adheres to, and a theory with historical and moral nuance. Whether you love or despise his legacy, "Scalia Speaks" is for conservative devotees and diehard liberals alike, and it deserves to be read cover-to-cover.
August 25, 2024
This is a stellar book. A collection of Scalia’s speeches on various topics, I learned a TON and laughed along the way.
I’d say the key take away is that the law, and the Supreme Court, cannot be distilled to the binary we all make politically today of liberal/conservative. A GOP appointee isn’t a guaranteed “conservative vote” on the Supreme Court. The law is a different animal than politics, and it was very enlightening to learn more about it.
Scalia did have his own sort of binary, though. He was an originalist back when the word was anathema. But his case is winning today: we should be constrained by what the constitution and the law says, and not seek to make it say what we want it to say, according to our newer and (of course) better values. Those benighted people of the past, our Founders and legal ancestors, didn’t know anything about gender like we enlightened people know today, so why listen to them?
Scalia’s orthodox Catholicism steeled him against that latter claim. How do we know we know any better? Shouldn’t we heed the wisdom of our forebears? Absolutely.
But originalism is not always conservatism. His take on the Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. 1892 case shows that. The church hired an English minister as its pastor. A federal law forbade importing foreigners to work in the U.S., with only certain exceptions. Clerical work was NOT one of them! SCOTUS went with the spirit of the law, unanimously allowing the church to hire a pastor, claiming in part that “this is a Christian nation.” Scalia disagreed with the decision, as there was no such exception in the law. He also disagreed with the assertion that the U.S. is Christian. “Legally it was false. But sociologically I have no doubt it was (in 1892) true” (128). Scalia no doubt would NOT be a Christian Nationalist today.
The speech on Lincoln is astoundingly good, showing the depth of discussion going on in Lincoln’s time, and even in Scalia’s, that is sorely lacking today. Scalia shows that Lincoln was no dummy, nor was he only opposed to slavery cynically while in the White House. Lincoln’s and Scalia’s analysis of Dred Scott’s case shows that precedent is not an iron rule, as earthly judges can err.
He gave several commencement addresses, and at one gave this gem of advice:
“It is much less important how committed you are than what you are committed to. If I have to choose, I will undoubtedly take the less dynamic, indeed even the lazy person, who knows what’s right, than the zealot in the cause of error…. It is your responsibility… not just to be zealous in the pursuit of your ideals, but to be sure that your ideals are the right ones…. Good intentions are not enough” (100).
These are only a few highlights. This is highly recommended reading to raise your level of understanding of legal issues.
I’d say the key take away is that the law, and the Supreme Court, cannot be distilled to the binary we all make politically today of liberal/conservative. A GOP appointee isn’t a guaranteed “conservative vote” on the Supreme Court. The law is a different animal than politics, and it was very enlightening to learn more about it.
Scalia did have his own sort of binary, though. He was an originalist back when the word was anathema. But his case is winning today: we should be constrained by what the constitution and the law says, and not seek to make it say what we want it to say, according to our newer and (of course) better values. Those benighted people of the past, our Founders and legal ancestors, didn’t know anything about gender like we enlightened people know today, so why listen to them?
Scalia’s orthodox Catholicism steeled him against that latter claim. How do we know we know any better? Shouldn’t we heed the wisdom of our forebears? Absolutely.
But originalism is not always conservatism. His take on the Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. 1892 case shows that. The church hired an English minister as its pastor. A federal law forbade importing foreigners to work in the U.S., with only certain exceptions. Clerical work was NOT one of them! SCOTUS went with the spirit of the law, unanimously allowing the church to hire a pastor, claiming in part that “this is a Christian nation.” Scalia disagreed with the decision, as there was no such exception in the law. He also disagreed with the assertion that the U.S. is Christian. “Legally it was false. But sociologically I have no doubt it was (in 1892) true” (128). Scalia no doubt would NOT be a Christian Nationalist today.
The speech on Lincoln is astoundingly good, showing the depth of discussion going on in Lincoln’s time, and even in Scalia’s, that is sorely lacking today. Scalia shows that Lincoln was no dummy, nor was he only opposed to slavery cynically while in the White House. Lincoln’s and Scalia’s analysis of Dred Scott’s case shows that precedent is not an iron rule, as earthly judges can err.
He gave several commencement addresses, and at one gave this gem of advice:
“It is much less important how committed you are than what you are committed to. If I have to choose, I will undoubtedly take the less dynamic, indeed even the lazy person, who knows what’s right, than the zealot in the cause of error…. It is your responsibility… not just to be zealous in the pursuit of your ideals, but to be sure that your ideals are the right ones…. Good intentions are not enough” (100).
These are only a few highlights. This is highly recommended reading to raise your level of understanding of legal issues.
January 16, 2022
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.
June 25, 2018
This memoir reveals the wit and wisdom of Justice Scalia. Compiled by his son, it is a compilation of his diverse speeches.
As a west-coaster, I loved seeing the perspective of an East Coast Italian Catholic, who placed great importance on character and virtue.
A few random notes:
Should the Constitution mean what it says or what we want it to mean? Should it be adhered to or should it be a living constitution—changing to conform to what we want it to mean?
George Washington called religion and morality two great pillars of human happiness.
“I know of no country in which the churches have grown fuller as the government has moved leftward. The churches of Europe are empty.”
As a west-coaster, I loved seeing the perspective of an East Coast Italian Catholic, who placed great importance on character and virtue.
A few random notes:
Should the Constitution mean what it says or what we want it to mean? Should it be adhered to or should it be a living constitution—changing to conform to what we want it to mean?
George Washington called religion and morality two great pillars of human happiness.
“I know of no country in which the churches have grown fuller as the government has moved leftward. The churches of Europe are empty.”
April 10, 2020
This rating is not a reflection of Scalia's opinions or beliefs, just of the book. This is a collection of speeches given by Scalia and a lot of them borrow from other ones, so read back-to-back they get kind of redundant
October 19, 2017
If you enjoy hearing well thought out opinions that comprised a number of speeches to varied audiences, you will love this book.
Antonio Scalia was a brilliant legal scholar with a dry wit and a wonderful way of using words to paint pictures and tell stories.
He was also a man of integrity who loved the law and had a high standard of ethics and character to measure others with.
A great read/listen, when you listen to his son narrate the boo,
Antonio Scalia was a brilliant legal scholar with a dry wit and a wonderful way of using words to paint pictures and tell stories.
He was also a man of integrity who loved the law and had a high standard of ethics and character to measure others with.
A great read/listen, when you listen to his son narrate the boo,
January 10, 2018
Staggeringly good. Some repetitive content, but it gives you a flair for the man and how he thought. Whether you agree with him or not, he is one of those rare examples of someone who can so clearly communicate WHY he's arrived at his conclusion that even if you disagree, you understand and respect how he got there with crisp logic anchored in a philosophical worldview.
October 18, 2017
Highly recommended. This set of speeches by Justice Scalia is a must read for anyone who enjoys good writing on many different subjects.
November 30, 2017
What a loss to the Supreme Court and to the country. His words betray his brilliance, his sense of humor, and his strong faith. This is a must read to get a glimpse of who he was.
July 31, 2020
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.
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.
January 22, 2020
I rather enjoyed this collection of speeches and writings by Justice Scalia. It gave a window into his personality and passions, intellect and wit. Many a time a comment made me grin in humor, or cock my head slightly to the side as an intellectual point struck home. I picked up this book looking to also read some of Scalia's great writings, his dissents for example, but I think any non lawyer who picks this up will be grateful for their exclusion. As such, this collection is for anyone to enjoy, and Scalia's sharp mind and insightful thoughts are worth being shared. I found much that I agreed with, but also found points of unexpected disagreement. My one ever slight criticism is that the themes and cited sources get a bit repetitive. Of course that makes sense. One turns to the quotations and materials known and loved most, and doesn't seek to count the sources. Quality over quantity is the mark of a good speech. Scalia would add brevity to that list. While the collection is thankfully not brief, most of the speeches are light and entertaining. Those that are not are appropriately attuned to the audience and the occasion.
November 10, 2018
Have you acquainted yourself with the writings of Judge Scalia? You should. His judicial opinions are as readable as they come. But if you can’t bring yourself to read even the best in class for Supreme Court opinions and dissents, then the speeches of Justice Scalia will have to suffice. One gets the sense that Scalia was more than just a great jurist, he was also a great Christian man. One cannot help but get great pleasure reading the words of a mind so great and a soul so good.
April 8, 2018
This volume is a collection of speeches given by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. It reveals a remarkable man of great intellect and integrity. Scalia's position on the interpretation of the US Constitution is almost totally on the side of applying it 'as written' and NOT trying to rewrite it to fit today's world - AND - he explains why with clear, convincing arguments.
August 29, 2023
Not your ordinary biography, but interesting nonetheless. Great book to understand the thought process behind originalism and how a Roman Catholic (in particular) deals with their role as a judge. The eulogies at the end could have been left out. Not my favorite legal book, but a solid read for a lawyer.
August 11, 2023
A delightful peek into the faith, friendships, and jurisprudence of a larger-than-life figure! Scalia was a masterful writer and communicator both on and off the bench. This collection of speeches was truly a joy to read.
November 1, 2017
Just a collection of speeches. Not to be mistaken for a biography.
August 27, 2019
Great prose, warm humor, simple yet erudite. Healthily self-deprecating, God-fearing. No wonder he and RBG were best friends.
March 9, 2022
Not my typical pick, but it was a really interesting read. I loved learning of the friendship that he and Ruth Bader Ginsburg shared. I miss the days when we put people over politics.
February 18, 2018
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.
December 30, 2021
Agree with his legal opinions or not, Justice Scalia was a brilliant jurist and an hilarious writer. This books has a forward by his great friend Ruth Bader Ginsberg and was edited by his son Christopher. The essays on faith, family, the law, being Italian-American, growing up in New York--they show a side of the justice unknown to most. I saw Justice Scalia speak at the Virginia Bar Association gathering in Williamsburg in 1989 and he was just as funny and smart and engaging as each of these essays are.
Read
January 13, 2018These are all printed versions of speeches Scalia gave at various times, most late in his career. I skipped around to read those that seemed the most interesting. The ones I read were pretty dry, and not really very interesting, for me anyway. I imagine they worked better if you heard him in person. As this seems a minority opinion, perhaps I should add that I'm generally sympathetic to Scalia's views.
So far, I've read or skimmed maybe a third of the book, and I don't think I'll be reading on before it comes due. So my advice would be to borrow the book from your library and try a few for yourself.
Here's the review that led me to read it:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/review-t...
Review: The Justice On His Soapbox
"Lawyers, professors, law students and even nonlawyers love to read the legal opinions of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, not only for their clarity and precision but also for their honesty, candor and, quite often, entertaining wit. ...
Scalia’s nonideological friendships, which some have seen as puzzling, were another sign of his faithfulness to greater values. His fast friendship with fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, despite their profound political differences, is well-known, and Justice Ginsburg provides a heartfelt foreword to this volume of speeches. Another was with Mary Lawton, a government lawyer virtually unknown outside the Beltway but so personally inspiring that both the Justice Department and the American Bar Association now confer awards in her honor. ...
--excerpts from review by John F. Duffy (may be paywalled)
So far, I've read or skimmed maybe a third of the book, and I don't think I'll be reading on before it comes due. So my advice would be to borrow the book from your library and try a few for yourself.
Here's the review that led me to read it:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/review-t...
Review: The Justice On His Soapbox
"Lawyers, professors, law students and even nonlawyers love to read the legal opinions of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, not only for their clarity and precision but also for their honesty, candor and, quite often, entertaining wit. ...
Scalia’s nonideological friendships, which some have seen as puzzling, were another sign of his faithfulness to greater values. His fast friendship with fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, despite their profound political differences, is well-known, and Justice Ginsburg provides a heartfelt foreword to this volume of speeches. Another was with Mary Lawton, a government lawyer virtually unknown outside the Beltway but so personally inspiring that both the Justice Department and the American Bar Association now confer awards in her honor. ...
--excerpts from review by John F. Duffy (may be paywalled)
November 4, 2017
A curated collection of Justice Scalia's speeches. While there was some repetition in the themes, anecdotes, and quotes, the book covers a wide range of topics. Being an attorney, my favorite section was probably that in which Scalia explains his judicial philosophy and excoriates others. However, the sections on faith and ancestry were also very interesting And provide a more holistic view of Scalia, the man, the father, the Italian-American, and the child of God. I would probably recommend this book to anyone, given that Scalia has left such an indelible mark on American history.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 168 reviews