American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

3.77 of 5 stars 3.77 · rating details · 70 ratings · 24 reviews

The first full-scale biography of the Supreme Court’s most provocative—and influential—justice

If the U.S. Supreme Court teaches us anything, it is that almost everything is open to interpretation. Almost. But what’s inarguable is that, while the Court has witnessed a succession of larger-than-life jurists in its two-hundred-year-plus history, it has never seen the likes of...more The first full-scale biography of the Supreme Court’s most provocative—and influential—justice

If the U.S. Supreme Court teaches us anything, it is that almost everything is open to interpretation. Almost. But what’s inarguable is that, while the Court has witnessed a succession of larger-than-life jurists in its two-hundred-year-plus history, it has never seen the likes of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Combative yet captivating, infuriating yet charming, the outspoken jurist remains a source of curiosity to observers across the political spectrum and on both sides of the ideological divide. And after nearly a quarter century on the bench, Scalia may be at the apex of his power. Agree with him or not, Scalia is “the justice who has had the most important impact over the years on how we think and talk about the law,” as the Harvard law dean Elena Kagan, now U.S. Solicitor General, once put it.

Scalia electrifies audiences: to hear him speak is to remember him; to read his writing is to find his phrases permanently affixed in one’s mind. But for all his public grandstanding, Scalia has managed to elude biographers—until now. In American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the veteran Washington journalist Joan Biskupic presents for the first time a detailed portrait of this complicated figure and provides a comprehensive narrative that will engage Scalia’s adherents and critics alike. Drawing on her long tenure covering the Court, and on unprecedented access to the justice, Biskupic delves into the circumstances of his rise and the formation of his rigorous approach to the bench. Beginning with the influence of Scalia’s childhood in a first-generation Italian American home, American Original takes us through his formative years, his role in the Nixon-Ford administrations, and his trajectory through the Reagan revolution. Biskupic’s careful reporting culminates with the tumult of the contemporary Supreme Court—where it was and where it’s going, with Scalia helping to lead the charge.

Even as Democrats control the current executive and legislative branches, the judicial branch remains rooted in conservatism. President Obama will likely appoint several new justices to the Court—but it could be years before those appointees change the tenor of the law. With his keen mind, authoritarian bent, and contentious rhetorical style, Scalia is a distinct and persuasive presence, and his tenure is far from over. This new book shows us the man in power: his world, his journey, and the far-reaching consequences of the transformed legal landscape.(less)

Hardcover, 448 pages

Published November 10th 2009 by Sarah Crichton Books

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Becoming Justice Blackmun by Linda Greenhouse

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. by G. Edward White

Supreme Court (History & Fiction)

45th out of 68 books — 30 voters

Supreme Court fanatics

24th out of 60 books — 11 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 209)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Nov 08, 2011 Eric_W rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: biography-memoir, supreme-court

Justice Scalia is one of those people I'd love to have over for dinner (even though I don't quite have his love of opera,) but I don't buy his premise that he's an originalist, i.e. one who argues that the law is to be interpreted in light of the intent of the framers. I mean really, then we'd be back implementing the 3/5ths rule, and I don't buy the idea that the framers all thought monolithically. He despises the idea of a "living Constitution," yet refuses to answer questions that seem to go...more Justice Scalia is one of those people I'd love to have over for dinner (even though I don't quite have his love of opera,) but I don't buy his premise that he's an originalist, i.e. one who argues that the law is to be interpreted in light of the intent of the framers. I mean really, then we'd be back implementing the 3/5ths rule, and I don't buy the idea that the framers all thought monolithically. He despises the idea of a "living Constitution," yet refuses to answer questions that seem to go to the heart of contradictions in his decisions like 1995 United States v Lopez that overturned a federal law regulating guns near schools "because it trampled on state authority," but ten years later voted to "uphold a federal drug law that voided a California policy allowing marijuana use for medical purposes." So where was his reverence for state law in 2005 Gonzales v Raich?

"I do not think," Scalia wrote in Nixon v Missouri Municipal League, "that the avoidance of unhappy consequences is an adequate basis for interpreting a text." Well, perhaps not, but Scalia's arrogance would prohibit any other interpretation of that text but his own. He seems to be quite happy savaging his colleagues (Sandra Day O'Connor was a favorite target - he considered one of her opinions to be "devoid of content.") Biskupic suggests that Scalia's influence on the court could have been even greater had he tried to be a little more diplomatic and attempted to build consensus. He seems to be quite happy railing at cultural change, "...the court is designing a constitution for a country I do not recognize." And perhaps therein lies the rub. He doesn't want the world to change, he doesn't like gays, probably hates the ordination of woman, still goes to a Catholic church where the mass is said in Latin, loves his guns Clarence Thomas said "he loves killing unarmed animals", and the man as head of the household. Conceived in Florence, but born in Trenton -- which he hated -- he now admits to becoming more and more crotchety to the point where he might wish a return to the days of Medician flogging and ear notching as forms of punishment.

In the meantime, times have changed, and some on the court have recognized that. Brennan and others recognized that the United States of today is very different than that of 1789 and if the country is to survive and prosper perhaps some interpretative differences will emerge. Scalia insists that he separates his personal theology and morality from his judicial role, yet he has been quoted as saying that he learned at Georgetown, a Jesuit university, that you must never" separate your religious life from your intellectual life. They're not separate." And just a little before he was nominated to the Supreme Court by Reagan he said "his judicial philoso0phy was "inevitably affected by moral and theological perceptions." Sounds like Sotomayor's famous speech.

The fact remains that through force of will (and perhaps more than a little sarcasm) he has been, to quote Elena Kagan in 2007, "the justice who has had the most important impact over the years on how we think and talk about law." Certainly the term originalist and original meaning are now the prevailing term in any legal discussion. Originalists take the position that the words in the Constitution mean today what they meant in 1789 and must be interpreted in that light. This assumes that the world of today is the same as the world of 1789 and assumes , to quote Justice Brennan, that the greatness of the Constitution lies precisely in "the adaptibility of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." The early originalists focused on the framers "intent," but that had to be revised as it became clear that determining intent of the large number of writers of the Constitution proved impossible so the focus then shifted to textual originalism. His argument that in a democracy, the legislature makes the laws and judges interpret it, and that if judges use moral positions in their interpretation they have become lawmakers rather than interpreters, i.e. tying decisions to text prevents judicial despotism (surely he must see the irony of this view with Bush v Gore, surely) does find sympathy with me. But then so does Brennan's view that judges are there to make sure that the system is "fair."

Scalia’s background working for the executive branch under Ford which required him to testify Congress on many occasions, left him with a palpable disdain for the legislative process and legislators in particular. He was quoted once as saying he could take them all on with one hand tied behind his back. In fact, one of his legacies will be less attention being paid to the legislative history of a bill, i.e. what the legislators said during debates (somewhat ironic for a textualist.) If he has any particular bias it would certainly be a sympathy for the executive branch. With five Catholics and no Protestants now sitting on the bench and his strong adherence to conservative Catholicism, one suspects that might influence him as well. One of his less attractive features is his total arrogance in denying any kind of influence.

My suspicion is that Scalia wants a return to the inequality of the old days where the folks in power, the rich, all knew they were superior, that they were better and the courts validated that superiority. The rules become an unbendable way to enforce the distinctions. A preserver of distinctions and inequality.

Sorry for all the references to Brennan but I just finished The Last Liberal: Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and the Decisions That Transformed America and am reading Justice Brennan: The Great Conciliator. I have a short attention span.

minor editing 11/8/11(less)

11 likes · like · see review

Feb 01, 2013 Jeff Kelleher rated it 2 of 5 stars

Not much life story.

If this first-ever biography of the colorful and prickly Associate Justice were a New Yorker profile, it would merit four stars; if an Atlantic Monthly feature, three. It is an accessible and compact survey of Scalia's public writings and pronouncements, and of public commentary on them. But as biography, it is disappointing.

Biskupic devotes only 21 pages to the first 38 years of her subject's life--the very period the reader is most curious about. How can this be called biog...more Not much life story.

If this first-ever biography of the colorful and prickly Associate Justice were a New Yorker profile, it would merit four stars; if an Atlantic Monthly feature, three. It is an accessible and compact survey of Scalia's public writings and pronouncements, and of public commentary on them. But as biography, it is disappointing.

Biskupic devotes only 21 pages to the first 38 years of her subject's life--the very period the reader is most curious about. How can this be called biography? Compare the first volume of Robert Caro's life of Lyndon Johnson-- 800 deeply illuminating pages on Johnson's first 33 years.

The book offers few glimpses of the influences that shaped Scalia's thought and temperament. Who were the teachers, priests, and professors who taught him? What courses did he take, books did he read, bull sessions did he attend, course papers and letters did he write? He did years of ROTC in school but never served in the military; why not? He spent his junior year at Switzerland's University of Fribourg in what Biskupic calls "a yearlong academic and sightseeing feast." That feastful year gets 43 words.

What was his work during his six years at the law firm of Jones, Day? Hardly a word on this. His four years as a professor at the University of Virginia get only glancing coverage.

The book is drawn almost entirely from published sources. The author did interview the Justice himself several times, and a scattering of family and acquaintances, but collectively these interviews add only the faintest coloration to the public record. Most of Scalia's friends, classmates, and colleagues are still alive, and so loquacious a man certainly has left a lot of private writings and utterances scattered about. But Biskupic did not bother to do the hard digging necessary to uncover them. She worked libraries, not the streets.

Biskupic surmises, casually and obviously, that his view of Roe v. Wade might have been shaped by his Catholic faith; and that his view of the District of Columbia's gun ban might have been influenced by his lifelong hunting hobby. Hardly profound.

Two speculations are particularly tantalizing. First, Scalia's literalist "originalism" in constitutional interpretation has a parallel in the literalist catechism of the Catholic Church. Second, as a law student he was taken with Herbert Wechsler's doctrine of "neutral principles" of constitutional law--the notion that judges should decide by applying transcendent principles that are detached from the outcome in a particular case. Both of these beg for elaboration, but Biskupic simply tosses them into a paragraph or two and moves on.

If you want a refresher on recent constitutional struggles, as expressed in Scalia's opinions, speeches, and writings, this is a useful book. If you are looking for illuminating biography, you will find, on finishing it, that you have learned almost nothing that was not already extant. (less)

like · see review

Jun 17, 2012 Holly Morrow added it

I don't know much about the Supreme Court (basically only what the redheaded Court-analyst lady on MacNeil/Lehrer says) but Justice Scalia has long been on my list of "If you could have five people to dinner..." on style points alone. Hes brilliant, combative, funny, and thoroughly and sincerely committed to his philosophy. Turns out I disagree on at least half of that philosophy, but I can respect an honest proponent of most viewpoints making an articulate and reasoned case for their side. Actu...more I don't know much about the Supreme Court (basically only what the redheaded Court-analyst lady on MacNeil/Lehrer says) but Justice Scalia has long been on my list of "If you could have five people to dinner..." on style points alone. Hes brilliant, combative, funny, and thoroughly and sincerely committed to his philosophy. Turns out I disagree on at least half of that philosophy, but I can respect an honest proponent of most viewpoints making an articulate and reasoned case for their side. Actually, my ideal would be to have Scalias of the left and the right fighting it out over issues of public policy -- a true competition of ideas -- rather than the rogues gallery of closet case hypocrites and partisan boobs who currently populate our public universe and their lame attempts to lob talking points at one another.

If anything, I am probably a little TOO swayed by smarts and eloquence, and can find myself ignoring actual substantive disagreements (I can hear several of you guffawing knowingly right now) because I'm dazzled by intellectual candlepower. So this book was good for me. Its a biography of Scalia, and the author ended up getting many hours of time with Scalia after she wrote him with some information about his family's origins in Italy...she used that as bait to get an interview and that turned into several more. It would have been a much less interesting read if it weren't for tidbits of reflection and recollection by Scalia himself sprinkled in. The author traces Scalia's early family history, through his education and early days in government and private practice as he became a significant figure in conservative circles, and on through his tenure on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court section is focused on several themes involving Scalia (and the Court)'s take on questions of race, religion, executive power, sexuality, abortion, etc;. Scalia's position is that his private moral sense, partisan affiliation, and religion (hes a devout Catholic, and used to drive his family an hour on Sundays to hear Mass in Latin) do not affect his jurisprudence -- that his rulings are guided only by a strict "originalist" reading of the Constitution, and the view that issues not directly addressed by the Constitution are not the purview of the Court and should be resolved through democratic processes and legislation rather than the dreaded "judicial activism." The author makes a pretty compelling case that Scalia is not in practice consistent on that, and that his rulings are indeed guided by his politically conservative viewpoint as much as by his originalist legal philosophy. But the book is by no means a hatchet job -- the author clearly has a good deal of respect and affection for Scalia and gives an at least fair hearing to Scalia's perspective. It is to me the perfect balance of respectful exposition of Scalia's views, and critical dissection of his record. But the real reason to read the book is Scalia himself -- he explodes off the page with his intensity, especially in his dissenting opinions, which he often writes with such dripping disdain and in a state of such high dudgeon that he ends up alienating his fellow justices, whose rulings he doesn't refrain from criticizing in scathing terms. Bottom line, this is a very good book and for me accomplished three objectives: (a) taught me about some of the more important Supreme Court rulings of the last two decades, (b) taught me a little about how the Supreme Court works, and (c) helped me separate out Scalia's razzle-dazzle (which I like) and his actual views (which I mostly don't like). But he still has a seat at my dinner.(less)

like · see review

Mar 10, 2011 Ernie rated it 3 of 5 stars

The library beckons. I must return the book. Actually I renewed it, but I am not really making progress, reading a only few pages in bed every night before the book hits my nose. So, I am stopping halfway through. My nose needs to heal.
My son, the lawyer, highly recommended the book. It is good. If I was a laywer I might have finished it. The book describes the career of Antonin Scalia and how he rose through the ranks to become a supreme court justice. The book also describes how the supreme c...more The library beckons. I must return the book. Actually I renewed it, but I am not really making progress, reading a only few pages in bed every night before the book hits my nose. So, I am stopping halfway through. My nose needs to heal.
My son, the lawyer, highly recommended the book. It is good. If I was a laywer I might have finished it. The book describes the career of Antonin Scalia and how he rose through the ranks to become a supreme court justice. The book also describes how the supreme court works, the different perspectives of the different justices and the processes leading up to the different decisions. -- That is the point where I left. I don't know the decisions by name, or their significance, like a lawyer would. Without that perspective, the middle of the book was fairly random to me.
With those caveats, I recommend the book. For me, the most interesting aspect was to see how unique each of the justices could be. They craft their own ways in coming to decisions and influencing their colleagues. It must be tough to be a lawyer since the justices are so unique. They can come to the same decision for widely different reasons. Or different decisions. --- That was the scary part. The role of ideology is strong and the court seems as polarized as our congress. Who we elect and whom is appointed makes a huge difference.
Read it. Quit when you want. If you are a lawyer you will probably finish it. -- I am reminded of one of my favorite biographies..... Black Appolo...biography of Ernest Everett Just. He was a black scientist working in the early 1900s. The book is about the difficulties he encountered in doing research, obtaining positions, obtaining funding at a time when segregation was ascendent. The books describes the extent of support he garnered from those who bucked the system...and their limits. It is also about the nature of research at the time that genetics emerged as a discipline. I loved it but but I suspect my son, the lawyer, might get bogged down by oblique references to TH Morgan, Muller, Haldane,etc.

(less)

like · see review

Jan 16, 2011 Laura rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: gift, law-policy-and-justice, willing-to-lend

This author was remarkably even-handed in her discussion of Justice Scalia and his jurisprudential philosophy, which is an impressive feat. Scalia is such a polarizing figure that to acknowledge both the merits and problems of his thinking and his approach to judging requires resolve and skill (and probably gratitude for his cooperation). The author explains the legal concepts that the Court considered clearly and correctly without watering things down, with the only exception being the use of "...more

like · see review

Mar 18, 2011 Katie rated it 4 of 5 stars

I have to begin this review by pointing out that I'm not a Scalia fan. I picked up this book in an attempt to understand a judicial philosophy that I find anathema to my own views. That said, this book accomplished everything I had hoped it would for me. First, I must note that the author is extremely balanced and fair (whew, that seems like a loaded phrase these days!) in her depiction of Scalia. The author reveals nothing about her personal views of politics or constitutional interpretation an...more

like · see review

Mar 26, 2010 Scott rated it 2 of 5 stars

This was actually harder to read than I had anticipated. The book focused more on his rulings, and it is really hard to see him as something other than an intolerant buffoon with a knack for hyperbole and exaggeration. He characterizes himself as an "originalist" (one who interprets the Constitution as it was originally written), but his rulings seem to indicate that he is inconsistent in applying that philosophy. When the "originalist" criteria doesn't seem to fit, he invokes his moral compass...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 15, 2010 Jason Wilcox rated it 3 of 5 stars

The material on Justice Scalia's early life is interesting. As with most books dealing with contemporary events or figures, the closer to the present day we get, the more Joan Biskupic gets wrapped up in her own biases. Its obvious she is not a fan of Scalia's jurisprudence, and the book turns into a bunch of "gotchas" by the time she starts writing about the mid-90s onward.

In short, first 130-150 pages are worth reading. The rest is 'eh.'

like · see review

Oct 11, 2010 Mark Jakubik rated it 3 of 5 stars

Some interesting, heretofore unknown (at least to me) biographical detail about Justice Scalia, it is very apparent that Biskupic neither sympathizes with, nor understands particularly well, Justice Scalia's jurisprudential philosophy or its origins. The former is forgivable, but not the latter.

like · see review

Apr 06, 2010 Susan Segal rated it 4 of 5 stars

A fascinating look at the mind of one of our Supreme Court Justices, whose opinions are usually quite the opposite of mine. Helps to understand where the Court may be going in the future - and it's a bit scary.

like · see review

Feb 12, 2010 Josh rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: 2010

Scalia is an incredibly smart man who really believes in what he's doing, and for that you must admire him. However, I think some of his decisions are impossible to reconcile with his originalist viewpoint. This book does a thorough job of documenting this, but never without staying fair. I just bought Justice Breyer's book on the living Constitution, it should be a perfect counterpoint to this book.

On another note, this book made me realize just how much I forgot about con law after graduating...more

like · see review

Nov 29, 2010 UChicagoLaw added it

Shelves: faculty-recommendations, 2010-faculty-recommendations

An interesting portrait of one of our former colleagues. - Michael H. Schill

like · see review

Mar 18, 2010 Matt marked it as to-buy-or-borrow

I saw her speak at the GWU Law School. It sounds like a very interesting book.

like · see review

Oct 27, 2011 Jake rated it 5 of 5 stars

Excellent study of Justice Scalia, his life, and his jurisprudence.

like · see review

Oct 15, 2011 Rory rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: supreme-court

An assured, smoothly evenhanded profile of the one Supreme Court Justice who is infuriating and fascinating at the same time.

like · see review

Apr 23, 2013 D. R. rated it 4 of 5 stars

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drtucker...

like · see review

Feb 05, 2011 Ryan rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: read-2011

Overall, a great biographical sketch of Scalia, his life, and judicial philosophy. The author, no matter how deferential to Scalia’s intelligence, is in obvious disagreement with his opinions. She tries very hard, however, to present a balanced view of the Justice and the consistent policy of judicial interpretation he espouses.

like · see review

Apr 07, 2010 Jason rated it 5 of 5 stars

Best Supreme Court biography I've read.

like · see review

Jul 25, 2011 Kevin added it

If you like Scalia, you will like him more. If you don't like him, this book won't change your mind.

like · see review

Jul 09, 2010 Jeff Raymond rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: read-nonfiction, read-biography-memoirs, read-law-and-legal

I don't know what Biskupic's ideology is, but I get the feeling that she's not a Scalia fan, which taints this book somewhat. It's not like I want to read hagiographies, but I don't really care to interpret incredulous reactions about the subject of the book in a biography, either. Not terrible, but could have been a lot better.

like · see review

May 12, 2010 Debmeinke rated it 3 of 5 stars

A fairly balanced look at Scalia. I disagree totally with 'originalists' - in my judgment the constitution was intended to be a living evolving document. But the man and justice is an interesting and complex person.

like · see review

Aug 13, 2011 Brian Cole rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shows the inconstitency of the originist. As the oldest justice maybe he will retire and President Obama can replace him.

like · see review

May 16, 2012 Malaise added it · review of another edition

Loved it! Easy to read. Great insight into SCOTUS most colorful justice.

like · see review

Aug 26, 2010 Barry added it

Shelves: biography

What would Jack Bauer do?

like · see review

Jun 14, 2013 Greg Chin marked it as to-read

Shelves: law, politics, biography-memoir

Jun 06, 2013 Nelly is currently reading it

Jun 05, 2013 Neoma added it

May 20, 2013 Jarrod rated it 5 of 5 stars

Apr 25, 2013 Virginia marked it as to-read

Apr 21, 2013 Sadiest marked it as to-read

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (4)

Videos About This Book

Add a comment

Joan Biskupic on CBS News Washington Unplugged

Add a comment

Genres

Law

5 users

Biography

4 users

Politics

2 users

Non Fiction

2 users

Biography Memoir

2 users

See top shelves...

About Joan Biskupic

JOAN BISKUPIC has covered the Supreme Court since 1989. Previously the Supreme Court reporter for The Washington Post, she is the legal affairs correspondent for USA Today, a frequent panelist on PBS’s Washington Week, and the author of Sandra Day O’Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice. She lives in Washington, D.C., with her husband and daughter.

More about Joan Biskupic...

Books by Joan Biskupic

Sandra Day O'Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice

The Supreme Court & the Powers of the American Government

Supreme Court Yearbook 1990-1991 Hardbound Edition

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About American Original...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

title link	preview: American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
avg rating	preview: American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Goodreads rating: 3.77 (70 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6687070-american-original?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1316738848l/6687070.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6687070-american-original?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia by Joan Biskupic[/url]

American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website