Scalia Speaks - a review

 

Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived by Antonin Scalia
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

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.

View all my reviews