Book Review of Scalia Dissents

In Scalia Dissents, Kevin Ring, former counsel to the U.S. Senate's Constitution Subcommittee, lets Justice Scalia speak for himself in giving his opinions on today's most controversial topics. Ring also provides helpful background on the opinions of cases, which makes them more accessible and practical. Scalia Dissents contains over a dozen of the justices' most interesting and controversial opinions.

This book would not have been written if it were not for such an interesting character to talk about. Before, I talk about the book itself I would like to "get to know" Antonin Scalia.

Antonin Scalia was born March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey to S. Eugene Scalia and Catherine Scalia. Scalia attended St. Francis Xavier, a military prep school in Manhattan and graduated first in his class. Later, her received his A.B. summa cum laude in history in 1957 from Georgetown University and was class valedictorian. Scalia continued to be very successful in academics at Harvard Law School.

Scalia began his legal career in 1961 as an associate at the law firm of Jones, Day, Cockley, and Reavis in Cleveland, Ohio. After a number of different jobs Scalia decided to go into teaching at the University of Virginia in 1967. From 1981 to 1982 he served as chairman of the American Bar Association's section on administrative law and was chairman of the Conference of Section Chairs. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan appointed Scalia to the U.S. court of Appeals for the district of Columbia Circuit. In 1986 President Reagan nominated him to Supreme Court. Scalia was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in September. Scalia also has two published writings, "The APA, the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court"(1978) and "Historical Anomalies in Administrative Law" (1985).

Antonin Scalia has a very credible resume and has had a very successful career. However I think what is most intriguing about Scalia is the way he interprets the law, even though we would not usually view "going by the book" as interesting. Scalia's interpretation from what I can see is black and white. Either there is textual support for each assertion or there is not. In the case that the text is to vague Scalia says courts should look to see if support for the claimed right or authority exists in the legal and social traditions of the United States.

From this way of approaching law it is clear to see that Scalia believes that the American legal system is best served when the Court makes clear rules of decision, not when it engages in balancing tests. Scalia believes general rules provide notice and certainty to the public on how people should follow the law. General rules, he feels, also ensure that the American people will receive equal and consistent treatment and will not fall victim to changing popular opinions. This, I think is why Scalia claims he likes his constitution "dead."

As I read this book I have to ask myself "what is the point of this book, what is the message?" My first instinct is to say "Anotnin Scalia is a Supreme Court Justice and is also funny" However, I would have to guess that if I talked to Kevin Ring he would say that was not why he wrote this book. According to Ring, "I would like to merely share Scalia's most compelling opinions and give readers, for the benefit of context, an overview of his judicial philosophy." So why write a book about one justice's philosophy? I think the reason this book was written is that we live in a society of ever changing opinions and popular ideals. What I got from this book is that the law can not be that way, the law is not trendy and that is what keeps it fair. Consistency, keeps the law fair. I have seen this through Antonin Scalia and hopefully that is the point that author is trying to get across. I think that using Scalia to make that point is the only way to go because of the way he approaches law and because of how funny a character he is.

I would like to talk about the layout of this book. Basically, Ring talks to us the reader about why he wrote this book (vaguely) and how it is organized in the Introduction. "For the sake of readability, I have eliminated many citations and almost all footnotes." Next, he introduces us to Antonin Scalia in the first chapter as a verbal "craftsman" This book then, is not a legal archive and was never intended to be so.

In order to talk about how this book is organized I would like to talk about two specific areas of the book. The first is Abortion. This section opens with "The Constitution of the United States does not contain a provision stating: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to privacy." Nor does it mention the word "abortion"." This sets the tone for the rest of the chapter. As with other chapters there is first a statement of fact that the author believes to be true and that shows us the tone of that chapter (each chapter covering a different issue). In the Abortion chapter the next thing the author does it tells us what Scalia thinks about the issue and how he uses the constitution to decide his place on the issue. Following this, we are given a legal case where the issue of abortion is the focus. We are given the case and then it is picked apart by Scalia "Scalia's frustration at Justice O'Connor's decision to sidestep Roe was at full boil." We break down where Scalia thinks problems arose and what his opinion is on the subject. After this we are again given another case and more of Scalia's opinions. As I read the chapter I appreciate