Scalia: A Court of One

by Bruce Allen Murphy

“[Murphy’s] biography of Justice Scalia is patient and thorough, alive both intellectually and morally….Functions as an MRI scan of one of the most influential conservative thinkers of the twentieth century.” ( The New York Times ): An authoritative, incisive and deeply researched book about of the most controversial Supreme Court justice of our time.

A Court of One is the compelling story of one of the most polarizing figures to serve on the nation’s highest court. Bruce Allen Murphy shows how Scalia changed the legal landscape through his controversial theories of textualism and originalism, interpreting the meaning of the Constitution’s words as he claimed they were understood during the nation’s Founding period. But Scalia’s judicial conservatism is informed as much by his highly traditional Catholicism and political partisanship as by his reading of the Constitution; his opinionated speeches, contentious public appearances, and newsworthy interviews have made him a lightning rod for controversy. Scalia is “an intellectual biography of one of [the Supreme Court’s] most colorful members” ( Chicago Tribune ), combined with an insightful analysis of the Supreme Court and its influence on American life over the past quarter century.

Scalia began his career practicing law in Cleveland, Ohio, and rose to become the president’s lawyer as the head of the Office of Legal Counsel for President Gerald R. Ford. His sterling academic and legal credentials led to his nomination by President Ronald Reagan to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in 1982. In 1986, he successfully outmaneuvered the more senior Robert Bork to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Scalia’s evident legal brilliance, ambition and personal magnetism led everyone to predict he would unite a new conservative majority under Chief Justice William Rehnquist and change American law in the process. Instead he became a Court of One. Rather than bringing the conservatives together, Scalia drove them apart. He attacked and alienated his more moderate colleagues Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy. Scalia prevented the conservative majority from coalescing for nearly two decades.

Genres: Biography, Law, Politics, Nonfiction, Legal, History, Biography Memoir

672 pages, Paperback

First published June 10, 2014

About the author

Bruce Allen Murphy graduated summa cum laude from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst in 1973 and received his Ph.D. in Government and Foreign Affairs from the University of Virginia in 1978. He taught Political Science and American History and Politics at Pennsylvania State University, and has been the Fred Morgan Kirby Professor of Civil Rights at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania since 1998.

Reviews

[Athul · Rating 1 out of 5]

I lean pretty far left, politically, but this book was dreadful. A hatchet job written by a hack. It contains a number of elementary errors of law—so many that I have little confidence in its recounting of fact. I recommend it to anyone who wishes on occasion to engage in a Two Minute Hate and to no one who cares about substance, nuance, or understanding the (rightly) much-maligned Justice Scalia.

[Giuseppe · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've never been a fan of Justice Scalia. He joins in the group of other past justices who is overly enamored with himself. I disagree with his philosophy of jurisprudence, which has ranged and changed from originalism to textualism. This is in direct opposition to the way I view the constitution, as a living document, that also relies on historical accounts of the original authors' intent. I also, as an Italian immigrant and US citizen, find it interesting how our similar backgrounds led to different philosophies. I enjoyed the book, but I wonder if perhaps I did so because it ultimately portrayed the man in a way consistent with the way I view him. I feel like the book may not represent the best biography of the man, and I would be inclined to read other biographies to more fully develop my viewpoint of the man and his jurisprudence.

[Matt Cota]

Solid, first half is better than second half. It felt too much like a casebook in the second half.

[Sam]

The only good criticism of Scalia was when Dershowitz said he wasn’t originalist enough and cited instances of conservative activism via the court bench

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

I recently read “Scalia Dissents:” by Antonin Scalia which was about his written dissents and a discussion as to why. I picked up this book “Scalia: A Court of One” by Bruce Allan Murphy because it was advertised as a biography, unfortunately I find myself hard pressed to call it one. Murphy is a professor of history from Lafayette College. He has written several biographies of Supreme Court justices in the past. This book is well researched in that he reviewed the usual archives, but in writing he relied heavily on journalistic accounts and second hand interviews. I was very disappointed that Professor Murphy did not interview Scalia for first hand information for the book. If the person the book is about is alive I feel it is important to interview them. Murphy goes into detail about Scalia’s method of analysis. Scalia call his approach “originalism” or “textualism” which means interpreting legal texts according to the import their words had at the time they were written.
Murphy does cover Scalia’s life as a child up to his appointment to the Court. I was interested in the information about Scalia’s father. Salvatore Eugene Scalia emigrated from Italy and worked as a laborer while putting himself through school. He became a professor of Romance languages. For his doctorial dissertation he developed a theory of “literal” textual translation with the aim of better capturing the original sense of foreign-language masterpieces. The author describes in detail Scalia’s collegiate career as a debater where he seemed to have developed a combative style of disputation. Murphy covers Scalia’s brief career with the Nixon administration and goes into detail about his career as legal counsel to President Ford and the Watergate Clashes with Congress.
It appears that Professor Murphy had two principal points to make in writing this book. One- that President Ronald Reagan appointed Scalia in hopes of gaining a voice capable of unifying the conservative wing of the Court. In this Murphy claims Scalia failed and goes into detail demonstrating it. The second major premise, which he demonstrates less effectively than the first, is that Scalia’s Roman Catholic faith has influenced his judicial opinion-making, especially in abortion rights cases. The second half of the book goes into detail about the speeches Scalia has delivered around the world mainly to Catholic University and conservative groups. Also in the last half he also goes into key cases covered by the court during Scalia’s time on the court and discusses in detail each case including cases when Scalia was writing for the majority and when he was writing for the dissenting view. I did learn more about this complicated man by reading the book but the book would have been better if Murphy had interviewed Scalia. There is a feeling that comes through the book that the author is a liberal writing about a conservative but it is not stated directly in the book. Only because I have recently been reading about the Supreme Court I picked up on a few inaccuracies in the cited cases discussed in the book. But overall the book was entertaining and well worth reading. I love learning new words and I picked up one in this book “eisegetes” the dictionary also has it as “eisegesis”. I read this as an e-book on the Kindle app for my iPad.

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have to preface this review by saying I received this book for free through the 'First Reads' program at GoodReads.

If you go into reading this book thinking it will be an unbiased biography on the Supreme Court Justice, you will be bitterly disappointed. Now, I don't agree with most of Scalia's decisions, but Murphy tries to paint Scalia in the most negative light possible. Whether it be his speeches, his interviews, or his opinions in cases, it is rare that Murphy makes a positive image of Scalia. This goes to the point of sometimes misrepresenting what Scalia actually said in his opinion, most egregiously his opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which Murphy tries to make it seem like Scalia had the opposite opinion than he really did. (See http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-m...). I am a liberal, so I do agree with many of Murphy's views on Scalia and his jurisprudence, but it is not healthy to just read things that confirm my own beliefs (just like Murphy criticizes Scalia of doing towards the end of the book.)

However, I don't agree with all of the criticism that this book has received, as it is obviously (for the most part) a very well researched book, and I learned a ton about Scalia's life and views that I hadn't before. I did enjoy learning more about Scalia's originalism/textualism theory, as well as some compelling arguments against it. The book is well written and easy to read, and maybe that's because it wasn't a dry, impartial biography. It was through and through an entertaining read, and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about the most controversial Justice today, so I do give it four stars, with caveat that it is a pretty biased book.

[Elizabeth Stolar · Rating 4 out of 5]

I p picked up this book on a whim, hoping to find out more about Justice Scalia. I had always thought of him as intelligent but evil, as I was just appalled by many of his legal positions and public statements. Yet, I knew that many had warm feelings toward him, and I had heard about his close friendship with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So I was hoping to learn more about Scalia himself and what made him endearing and complex.

Unfortunately, this was not that type of book. It's really more of a professional biography and by the end it's largely just a critique of his jurisprudence. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and it's a valuable contribution to the books about the SCOTUS. However, I doubt that anyone without a keen interest in Constitutional law would find it worthwhile. I did find it illuminating and interesting and I did enjoy reading about his activities and career, but I wish it had contained more personal information about him off the Court. My overall impression of him isn't any different than it was prior to reading this book.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good on Scalia, overall. That said, Murphy could have noted that Scalia's originalism sounds a lot like Catholic "traditionalism" for its understanding on how the Church interprets the bible. To me, that was a home run waiting to be smacked.

It's not so good on his analysis of other justices, most notably Stevens and Roberts.

Murphy's thoughts, post Affordable Care Act ruling, that Roberts would trim his version of hardcore conservativism to the political winds, as needed, shows no post-ACA signs of really being true.

With that in mind, I'm halfway interested in his other SCOTUS justice bios, but I'd read them even more critically.

[Daniel DeLappe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Over all a good read. Some interesting back Ground on Scalia. My problem is only going to sources that not only disagree with subject of book but have their own agenda. Would have liked to have seen some opinions outside of Judge Posner. Bruce Allen Murphy is a damned fine writer, but I can not take a history of anything seriously when Huffpo and Slate are used as sources.

[Austin Stevenson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of the book started off well and presented a solid and thorough description of Scalia's upbringing, from childhood through his employment prior to the judiciary. After his investiture into the judiciary though, the book seems to be more interested in providing an indictment of Scalia's opinions and actions as opposed to presenting an unbiased look at his career.

[Alex Tsiatsos · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very well-written book. After Scalia becomes a judge, and then a justice, the book proceeds primarily by moving from case holding to case holding, and the author does a good job explaining the cases and fitting them together, although the unavoidably technical nature of some of the legal writing may be difficult for some people to follow.

In between the case holdings, the other main themes (after the early years) are Scalia's judicial philosophy and his often controversial public speeches. Those three themes are what you would expect to be the aspects of his life -- at least as the public sees his life. There was not much personal information following the early chapters. Perhaps this is because the author didn't have access to that part of his later life (it isn't clear to me whether Scalia knew the author was writing this book -- other than one meeting between them described in the book, I don't know that they ever spoke). I don't know, but some human interest, maybe more about the friendship between Scalia and Ginsburg or some law clerk gossip at least, would have helped round out the picture.

The critique of Scalia's philosophy seemed forced, at time. But, to the author's credit, Scalia's position often comes out looking good, despite the author's disapproval.

[Red Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

A nice combination of an understandable but still detailed examination of Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court, the intersection of the courts and the political process, and the Constitution. As a Scalia fan, I thought the depiction of him here was fair.

The title comes from the thesis of the book - Scalia was not capable or, or not willing to, build a conservative consensus on the court. He was more comfortable expressing his views and becoming "a court of one."

111 - Scalia split from Bork's "original intent" - what the Framers of the Constitution meant - by relying initially on "textualism," or what the "public meaning" of the Constitution was in the minds of the people when it was passed.

Scalia was confirmed by a Republican Senate, while later Bork was rejected by a Democrat Senate. As Scalia at the time was acceptable to both parties, in theory if Bork had been nominated first, and then Scalia, both would have been confirmed.

Scalia viewed the Constitution, and the Court's interpretation of it, not as inviting change, but as making change difficult, mainly by preventing the majority or the powerful from doing whatever they want.

[Darcy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Murphy produces a meticulous account of the life of Scalia. Beginning with the history of his grandparents and parents, Murphy then turns to the childhood and education of Scalia. It traces all the the way to Scalia's career pinnacle, the Associate Justice.

For me, the most interestering part was covering how he transformed the court.

Scalia began to craft a new jurisprudence. It began with a strict textualism.Textualism requires the consideration of what the terms means at the time of enactment. Yet the jurisprudence develops to become originalist. Originalism requires consideration of how the text was interpreted and practiced at the time.

The role of the judge is further transformed by Scalia. He displaces the common law rule of a judge be reclusive and not seeking the public eye. Instead, Scalia seeks out the public eye. He often use it as an defence mechanism against fellow justices, the media and academia.

Ultimately, it dispels the myth of judges being arbitrators of the law.This is so even at the highest court of the land.

[Nick Candido · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this book but there was a definite bias against Scalia that came through the more you read. The book tried hard to make the point that Scalia's originalist philosophy was less a neutral way of approaching law but rather a tool to further his conservative agenda. While I think that all judges on both sides may have a hard time divorcing their policy beliefs from judgments I don't think Scalia was as policy-motivated as the book makes him out to be. The book did do a great job of painting a picture on his character and his stubborn-headedness when it came to building concensus and I felt the book read well.

[Nichola Gutgold · Rating 5 out of 5]

I never tire of biographies, and since not once have I read about any of the male SCJ, I thought this looked like a good place to start. I definitely glazed over some of the legal stuff, but I was in complete rapt attention at the biographical details that shaped Scalia. He was a giant intellect from the greatest generation to was devout, by the book Catholic. He had a huge personality to match his brilliance, and Dr. Murphy brings him to life with impressive research. I learned a lot from the book and gained in my appreciation for Scalia, who was one of RBG's best friends!

[Fredrick Danysh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia was a strict constitutionalist. This book discusses his political beliefs as well as many of the cases that appeared before him. Scalia: A Court of One is a good read.

[Dwayne Smith · Rating 1 out of 5]

My wife found this book in the book section of Dollar Tree and I understand why. As I read it, I kept waiting for something positive but all I could see was a book written with a partisan viewpoint to attempt to discredit the great justice.

[Christian Santos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Offers a preview into one of the most politicized and conservative Justices on the Supreme Court. Highly relevant in our politically polarized Presidency.

[Jennifer Jeffes]

Biased and a bit repetitive in its charges against Scalia as the author has a serious respect/loathe relationship with the justice. Still liked the book.

[Madeline M. Black · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very interesting but too much detail about court cases for my taste

[John Findlay · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a wonderful book for learning about the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia. While there are technical discussions of court rulings, I found them relatively easy to follow and felt that I could understand what the various Justices were thinking. About Scalia, I learned that he is very intelligent, a champion debater who can argue either side of an issue with facility, extremely conservative, extremely conservative as a Catholic, a bully, and has an ego the size of Texas and Alaska combined. Interestingly, these latter two attributes appeared to come out only after he was named to the Supreme Court. The first third of the book deals with his background, education, jobs, family life, etc. prior to joining the court, and is very interesting. The rest is about his career on the Court. From the first moment, he has tried to stand out and verbally abused and mocked other justices who did not agree with his positions. His dissenting opinions are legend. He has also tried to advance his methodology for interpreting the Constitution, which he terms originalism and textualism. He attempts to decipher the meaning of the phrases in the Constitution as they were understood at the time they were written by analyzing the debates at the ratification conferences, the language at the time (although he uses a dictionary that dates from 30-40 years after the Constitution was ratified), and the history of that time. He is convinced that this method of interpretation is the best and most objective, and he scorns other methods. In particular, he scorns Justices who believe in "the Living Constitution". However, the author points out several weaknesses in Scalia's method, including that different ratification conventions may have interpreted clauses differently and that the interpretation of history allows for considerable subjectivity. In fact, it often seems that Scalia's method is used more to justify his vote rather than to help him arrive at what it should be. Very often, his vote is predictable even before the oral arguments begin.
Unfortunately for Scalia, the position he has staked out for himself on the court and his relationship with other justices has limited his power. The author points out that the more centrally positioned justices such as O'Connor, Kennedy, and Roberts are those that dictate court decisions. All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and am much more knowledgeable about the Supreme Court than I was previously. However, I am left with the feeling that term limits for justices would be a wonderful idea, and also that the court is often far from objective in its rulings. In the pivotal case of Bush vs Gore, for instance, Sandra Day O'Connor wanted to retire but needed a Republican President to do so, and was very dismayed when it briefly appeared that Gore had won Florida. Yet she was part of the decision that elevated Bush to the Presidency. Scalia, himself, in his off-court activities attends conferences sponsored by the Koch brothers. To me, that is very disturbing. The political nature of the court has lowered its standing in the eyes of many. I would highly recommend this book by an author who has followed the court closely.

[patrick Lorelli · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very in-depth look at the life of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Starting with his parents and his home life to his early education which is the foundation of his decisions. Then on to Georgetown University. When at Georgetown he is on the debate team and by his sophomore year his partner and he are winning the most prestige’s awards in the debate field. This wanting to debate and almost over the top in wanting or having the other side see his point would lead to problems later in his life. After graduating it was on to law school and then you get a look at his plan of jobs from teaching to working at a law firm which he argued a case in front of the Supreme Court. To him becoming a judge and then taking a position on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Though he knew it would be a cut in pay he also knew that this would be a step in the right direction for the spot he would want to be at the Supreme Court. October 16, 1986 started his time he is the first Italian American to hold the spot as a Supreme Court Jurist and though that may not sound like a big deal it is in the Italian American community. His first days were filled with frustration in that the Justices did not speak to each other and did not go over cases. The way he would handle this would cause problems for throughout his time there. This book goes into how he would try to get other Justices to change their views or opinions on cases and how he always wanted to be heard. It also goes into cases that have changed us the U.S. and how not only his decision but that of the court. The book mostly goes into his decisions but towards the end of the book the author looks at some of the more current decisions and how they were decided even when the Chief Justice in part of his decisions made it appear that the health care law was in violation of the constitution, but his approval was going against his own argument and seemed more of a political vote than an actual fact base vote that is what they were set up for. Check and balances. This is a book with a lot of information and the author spent many hours of research on it. A very fascinating book. I got this book from net galley.

[Bonnie Samuel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is extremely detailed and well-researched. I found some of the case summaries a bit hard to follow, which is no knock against the author since Supreme Court cases are complicated things, but overall this is what a biography should be. One or two other reviewers thought it was biased to the left, but I didn't see that. The author doesn't tend to draw his own conclusions or rely on "unnamed sources" for his information. This is not a witch hunt or a hit piece and I can't discern any attempt on the part of the author to portray Scalia in an exaggeratedly negative way. Instead the author pulls directly from Scalia's own public statements, speeches, interviews, and case opinions, as well as those from his Supreme Court colleagues, legal journalists and world-renowned legal experts to give as complete a picture of Scalia and his judicial philosophy as possible. Taking the information in its entirety, it's pretty hard to argue that Scalia doesn't use his religious and political beliefs to inform his decisions on the bench or that he doesn't consider his philosophy the one "right" way to interpret law. His disdain for his fellow justices, even his fellow conservative justices, is pretty hard to miss in his venomous dissents. He seems to view most people as beneath him, particularly those who disagree with him. Although at 500 dense pages, this book will appeal mostly to those who have a strong interest in government and the Supreme Court, it's a great, in-depth look at one of the most controversial Supreme Court judges in history.

[Richard Harden · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before I begin my review, allow me to define some terms I will use. First, I reject the notion that Scalia, Rush Limbaugh or the TEA Party are "conservatives." They are so far removed from the historical American conservative movement that I feel the term "post-conservative" is by far the more appropriate term. When I use the term "conservative" I will be refering to the more traditional understanding of that term among political scientists.

This biography of Scalia I believe can only strengthen what one previously believed about the Justice. Either one loved him and continues to find him the paragon of the post-conservative political scene, or one hated him and contines to revile him for his manipulation of his so-called originalism to further his a priori political beliefs.

One conclusion I think should be drawn from a reading of this work, but doubt that many will is that Conservatives ought to resent the way Scalia's belief in his own superiority over all other interpreters of Constitutional opinion frequently has pushed Conservative justices to side against him. A more tempered Scalia could have drastically changed the landscape of Supreme Court decisions during his tenure. By extension, then, liberals should be thankful that a more diplomatic justice was not chosen in his place.

[Marc · Rating 5 out of 5]

Engrossing, balanced account of the controversial conservative firebrand. This book was hard for me to put down.

I'm a liberal with no legal training, but I found some of Scalia's arguments thought-provoking. I still disagree with him on most things; also, while his textualist philosophy makes sense, he abandons it when another approach produces the result he wants.

There is good biographical detail about Scalia's early life and education, but the focus is, naturally, on his Supreme Court tenure.

I fervently hope that Scalia will retire under a Democratic president, so that the balance of the court will swing back to my point of view. However, this book helped me respect Scalia's intellectual gifts and gave me a much better understanding of his thinking.

[Harry Lane · Rating 4 out of 5]

A densely, extremely detailed biography of an interesting and influential person. The early chapters, dealing with Scalia's family life, education and early work go far to account for his conservative bent. Less explainable is his evident certitude that he is always right. Murphy offers convincing evidence of Scalia's brilliance and ability to argue forcefully for his positions. It is likewise clear these abilities are predominantly used to arrive at predetermined conclusions. Murphy's account also details a tendency in Scalia to both an intellectual and a moral arrogance, which might account for his obvious "tin ear" with regard to potential and actual conflicts of interest and a somewhat one-sided ethical standard.

[Barbara Phillips-Farley · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating take on a fascinating fellow. Some of the intricacies of law are beyond me, but still I kept reading. There's no doubt that Scalia has sometimes ruled according to his political proclivities, or that he has massaged his "originalist" readings of the Constitution. Still he has a ferocious intellect and is principled. Early on, the author attributes Scalia's originalist leanings to his pre-Vatican II background and to his immigrant father's belief in literal translation.

[Jack Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

Detailed look at one of the most polarizing justice's. I enjoyed the in depth discussions on Scalia's preparation for the role as justice and how everything he did leading up to that moment was geared at that goal. Details of his clashes with O'Connor and Kennedy make it clear why the court stands where it does today. Worth the read just to understand the stark differences in our justices.

[Dan Cotter · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very interesting book. At times very laudatory of Scalia, at other times it raises questions about his judicial philosophy and his interactions with other justices throughout the years. But well written and thorough and very accessible to lawyers and non-lawyers.

[Al Menaster · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book. Covers all of Scalia's life, his many years on the court, and his many scandals. Very readable. Murphy excels at explaining complex cases so you can understand what Scalia's dissent means.