Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
Start by marking “Scalia's Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents” as Want to Read:
Scalia's Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents
The sudden passing of Justice Antonin Scalia shook America. After almost thirty years on the Supreme Court, Scalia had become as integral to the institution as the hallowed room in which he sat. His wisecracking interruptions during oral arguments, his unmatched legal wisdom, his unwavering dedication to the Constitution, and his blistering dissents defined his leadership...more
Kindle Edition, 592 pages
Published April 4th 2016 by Regnery Publishing
To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
Start your review of Scalia's Court: A Legacy of Landmark Opinions and Dissents
The important thing in Democracy is not to win, but to take part; the important thing in Life is not to have conquered but to have fought well.
The Socrates of SCOTUS
About four years ago, I had an interesting GR group discussion of the trial and death of Socrates. Someone said that the Athenians were good at sophistry, not sound reasoning, whereas the judicial system in the US was more conducive to reasoned judgments. I said, "You would be hard pressed to prove that the Athenians' arguments are ...more
The author gives his interpretation of opinions on a variety of opinions written by Justice Anthony Scalia on a variety of issues ranging from abortion to gun control to immigration. This work reads like it was written for the legal profession.
Justice Scalia uses the mastery of English language and logic to state his opinions with amazing clarity. The brutality of simplicity of logic with which Justice Scalia takes apart, brick by brick if you will, the opinion of majority is awe inspiring. The consistency with which he applies the principles of textualism and originalism to his opinions and dissents should serve as a counter argument to anyone claiming favoritism on Scalia's part. This book is not an easy read for a laymen of law, ...more
This is a well-curated collection of Justice Scalia's writing. It is a collection of his most interesting and fun-to-read opinions and dissents, not necessarily his most important and noteworthy writing. I think this is a breath of fresh air - there are a lot of resources if you're looking for his most important and noteworthy opinions. This collection of writings is about how Justice Scalia had a both a particularly well-developed view of the world and of jurisprudence, and how he was uniquely ...more
I'm so grateful I read this book. It was so educational and encouraged us to learn more about the law of our country. My family and I had some interesting discussions because of it. Scalia was a brilliant, thoughtful, funny man. I'm glad we learned more about him.
Should you have told me a year ago that I would not only consume, but immensely enjoy, a book that is just legal opinions from some old judge, I suppose I wouldn't have believed it. I do like logic, but I've always greatly disliked lawyers and lawyerly sophistry, so I was surprised recently to be interested in a lecture about Supreme Court history from the Great Courses library. This led me to watch some mini documentaries on YouTube, along with lectures and conversations from supreme Court ...more
A fascinating work! This is a large anthology of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s legal opinion that he penned in landmark Supreme Court cases. It brought back memories of reading Supreme Court decisions back in my undergraduate days in UCLA. The subject of this work is fascinating but in light of my busy schedule with work and other readings I knew I wasn’t going to read this 592 page book anytime soon. However discovering that this book was available in audiobook format was just too good ...more
This was a fascinating book about and by one of the best legal minds in the history of the US Supreme Court! Don't take my word for it, there are accolades to that effest from his fellow SCOTUS Justices from the more conservative to the more liberal. It was more interesting than I expected and his constitutional knowledge and adherence to what the written laws are (as opposed to what some Justices want it to be) are mixed with his well known wit in developing his supporting and dissenting ...more
reversed activism judicial, Brennan you can do anything vs right thing, deciding vote nearly 340 decisions, look for original meaning, separation of powers as good neighbors with good fences, MA government of laws not men, corrupt Independent Counsel 10 already and effects on balance of power will do great harm to republic, Dred Scott decision and Roe Wade and internment of Japanese rootless nature, no personal predilection, will lead to value judgments in confirmation hearings, sodomy and ...more
This was a difficult book to read. Not because the material is hard, although there were several passages I had to wade through, but because Scalia is graphic in his descriptions on occasion. I took several breathers on the passages about Partial Birth Abortions for example. I never really understood what that entailed and it was so shocking and horrific to me that I had to stop for awhile. Scalia's opinions are so articulate and well written. He makes them almost a narrative as opposed to legal ...more
It was a pleasure to re-read many of Justice Scalia's best opinions. I find myself agreeing with others that he is in the (very) small circle of best of the dazzlingly brilliant minds on the high court and in the (even smaller) circle of most erudite, clear, and forceful writers the legal profession has or will ever see. Reading his prose is a treat, and I am sorrowful I will not have an opportunity to savor any more bon mots he had such a gift for spinning. Five stars.
A wonderful anthology of Scalia's most noteworthy writings on all of the important issues, showcasing his originalist view of the Constitution, his textualism when interpreting law, his penetrative thinking, and revelational wit. Scalia was one of our greatest Justices and is dearly missed--this book shows why.
Scalia was brilliant. Progressives may certainly disagree with his opinions, but having read some of SCOTUS's decisions, I don't think any of them could seriously argue with his approach. His writing was exquisite. Anyone interested in some of the most important cases of our times owes it to themselves to read this book. Highly recommended!
Antonin Gregory Scalia was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was appointed in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan having previously served on the D.C. Circuit and in the Nixon and Ford administrations, and teaching law at the Universities of Virginia and Chicago. He is considered to be a core member of the conservative wing of the court, vigorously advancing textualism ...more
“Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament. But it was secured to them as individuals, according to “libertarian political principles,” not as members of a fighting force.”
“During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.”More quotes…