Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice

This is a wonderfully written book. I haven't come across any writer who better explains the issues and Scalia's jurisprudence than Ring, including Scalia himself.In the first chapter, Ring clearly and crisply summarizes Scalia's interpretive methodology. The rest of the book is divided into various topics, such as separation of powers, abortion, race, religion, etc. Ring briefly explains the issues of selected cases in each topic, followed by excerpts from Scalia's (generally dissenting) opinions.Ring's greatest achievement is avoiding polemics entirely. This is emphatically not just a book for conservatives. It's just as much for liberals who actually believe in democracy. Ring keeps his eye on the ball by emphasizing that the central issue is separation of powers (a judicial issue), not whether a policy result is good or bad (a legislative issue). In Scalia's view, separation of powers is even more important than the bill of rights in securing our liberties. Congress cannot usurp executive or judicial powers, the President cannot usurp legislative or judicial powers, and the Supreme Court cannot usurp legislative or executive powers.Scalia's position on Constitutional rights is very simple. If the text of the Constitution does not explicitly protect the right and there was no tradition of protecting the right when the Constitution was ratified, it is not Constitutionally protected and that's the end of the analysis. If the right is to be protected, it's up to the elected members of Congress or the state legislatures, not five unelected life tenured lawyers. Any other methodology, such as one founded on the "living" Constitution or "evolving standards of decency," is nothing more than a legislative power grab. As Scalia often points out, how can an appointed committee of lawyers be better equipped to determine society's evolving standards of decency than legislators elected by that society?Abortion is a concrete example. It's not mentioned in the text of the Constitution and there was no tradition of protecting it when the Constitution was ratified. In fact, abortion was prohibited for two hundred years after ratification. So abortion cannot be a Constitutional right and its proponents are left to the democratic process.Instead, a majority of lawyers on the Court usurped the power to legislate on abortion. Demonstrations for and against abortion are now on the steps of the Court, instead of the state legislatures. Confirmation of Supreme Court justices has become a throughly political process. The focus is now on the political views of the nominee, not his or her judicial qualifications. All of this, of course, is to be expected from the Court's encroachment into the lawmaking power. The lawyers on the Court have become abortion referees deciding whether state laws place an "undue burden" (whatever that means) on the "right" to abortion.Scalia's prose can be a little dense, but his logical brilliance and wit definitely come through. He is in turn sardonic and sad at how far the Court's jurisprudence has come from that envisioned by the framers. He is meticulous in deconstructing the majority's ludicrous rationales and prophetic in describing the harmful results. Scalia's most impressive opinion is perhaps his 1989 dissent on the independent counsel statute, a case in which the majority permitted legislative encroachment into the executive power. He correctly predicted the harmful results of the opinion, as the supporters of Bush I and Clinton both learned by experience.One can only hope Scalia's defense of separation of powers will win out in the end, but it's hard to be optimistic at this point.

This has to be one of the best books I've ever read - and I read A LOT of books. I've always been fascinated with US history and the founding of our country. I've also been a policial junkie for the past 25 years and recently made a mid-life career change and will be attending law school in the fall - so that may explain my interest in this book.So many times over the years, the Supreme Court made decisions I couldn't understand. The mainstream media only reports the majority decision - not the dissenting opinions - so I thought maybe there was something in the Constitution I missed or didn't understand. Now I realize that I'm not alone - there is at least one Justice who believes that the job of the Supreme Court is to analyze an issue based on the original text and meaning (not "intent") of the Constitution - not to further social policies. If something is not addressed in that document - such as a phantom "right to privacy" - the SC should back off and let "we the people" and our elected legislatures make policy determinations, not 9 non-elected lawyers. If the people don't like something in the Constitution, or want something added to it, there is a specified way to change it.This is a fascinating book and Scalia writes in a way that doesn't require any legal knowledge. His passion comes through in his writing, and he backs everything up with facts and/or appropriate analogies. I wish we had more like him on the Court, and fewer Justices who think they have the godlike right to effect social policy changes because of their personal feelings. Maybe then we could get rid of the farcical "litmus tests" on divisive issues like abortion for nominated Justices, and instead get some true Constitutional scholars.

In the dust jacket, the book purports to let "Justice Scalia speak for himself" and it sounds fairly neutral, praising his prose more than anything else.Unfortunately, it quickly becomes clear this is more of a conservative love-fest, and at book's end, there is no longer any pretense at objectivity. Example: "In Scalia's America, freedom, democracy, and diversity would flourish...." Okaaaay.There is no serious criticism of Scalia's opinions anywhere in the book. Which would be fine if this were truly a book that simply let Scalia speak for himself. But it isn't. Ring sings his praises at every turn, defends him against all his critics, and can seemingly find no fault with anything Scalia has ever said or written.Many of Scalia's opinions in the book are actually very compelling, and he does have an acerbic wit. I found myself in complete agreement with Scalia in the ADA/PGA Golf Tour case, and I agreed in principle on his Affirmative Action and Death Penalty stances. So I'm not knocking this book because I dislike Scalia or his opinions. I simply think the book is operating under false pretenses.When we get to Freedom of Speech, Ring mentions in passing that Scalia voted to uphold flag-burning as a form of speech, but doesn't explain how this passes Scalia's "originalism" test. Did Congress have flag-burning in mind when it adopted the First Amendment? If not, is there support for it in the country's legal and social traditions? If not, then how is it protected under "originalism"? Scalia avoided the question by silently joining the majority opinion. I'm guessing Ring avoided it because it didn't fit his conservative agenda.Ring was more eager to discuss Hill v. Colorado, a case where abortion protestors were also claiming freedom of speech. Ring characterized their "speech" as nothing more than "oral protest," "counseling," and "education" on the sidewalks outside abortion clinics, neglecting to mention that some anti-abortion protestors would "yell, thrust signs in faces, and generally try to upset the patient[s] as much as possible," would surround patients and scream at them, and so on. Now, perhaps that behavior is irrelevant and should be protected the same as polite, respectful speech. But by glossing over that behavior, Ring and Scalia do a disservice to the argument.Ring implies that Scalia is the only Justice on the Supreme Court to have a consistent judicial philosophy, that he is "unique". In fact, Ring uses the word unique so much that Scalia must be UNIQUELY unique. Does this mean that every one of the other eight Justices has no philosophy, is not unique, and is somehow less rational or less responsible, simply because they haven't publicly beaten their own drum? The answer is buried in their opinions, so until someone does a more balanced analysis, Ring's assertions need to be read with a healthy skepticism.

A great SCOTUS Judge