I had previously recomended this work to several friends- buying it this time for my sons (14 & 17) to read. They also enjoyed Justice Scalia's candor and forthright approach to legal reasoning.

The only complaint I have about this book is that it dragged on for slightly too long. Other than that, it is a great summary of Scalia's most influential opinions and accurately summarizes his judicial philosophy and view.

I am a HUGE Scalia fan and agree with him on most constitutional and statutory questions, in addition to loving his sense of humor and wit. But for the life of me, I can't imagine why anybody would want to spend money on this book. The book is simply a handful of truncated Scalia opinions without the majority opinions to which he's responding.

All of these opinions can be accessed for free in their COMPLETE form from any number of legal websites (such as FindLaw, for instance). More importantly, those websites, unlike Ring's book, include the majority and concurring opinions in those cases, giving the reader at least the option of seeing what Scalia's opposition actually wrote.

~Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice~ is an intriguing anthology of some of the most pivotal Supreme Court cases during the tenure of associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been a vigorous proponent of textualism in legal statutory interpretation and originalism as it relates to construction of the Constitution. He has been a passionate critic of the idea of a Living Constitution, declaring in tongue-in-cheek fashion that, "I like my Constitution dead." Though, Scalia is considered a conservative, he takes a more favorable view of national power and may be considered a partisan of Alexander Hamilton. At a conference on federalism, Scalia urged his colleagues to embrace a positive view of federal power "as Hamilton would have urged you--to keep in mind that the federal government is not bad but good. The trick is to use it wisely." Yet on the same token, Scalia has eschewed attempts to bring every issue under the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. Moreover, he has been a relentless advocate of judicial restraint. Scalia proclaimed defiantly, "The Court must be living in another world. Day by day, case by case, it is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize." And later, he avowed, "This Court seems incapable of admitting that some matters--any matters--are none of its business." In moments of sober-minded reflectiveness, Scalia recaptures the forgotten lineaments of the constitutional federal republic, in his thoughtful dissenting opinions. For example, he has vigorously defended the separation of powers, and protested the abuse, misuse, and creation of free-wheeling independent counsels and sentencing commissions which rob judges of their discretion in adjudicating justice. He has challenged federal absurdities relating to mandated preferential treatment for ethnic minorities and peoples with disabilities. Though, Scalia has aggravated some conservatives at the same time, such as his majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which religious conservatives believe struck a blow at the free exercise of religion by laying the groundwork for more devastating precedents. What makes the book funny, for any pre-law or law student who may recollect, Scalia has a witty sense of humor. Kevin Ring captures a few of those so called Scalia moments. Objecting to the judicial activism of the radical separation of church and state crowd, Scalia has protested the precedent set in the Lemon case, declaring: "Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again." Overall, this is a thoughtful collection of witty dissents by the Associate Justice. Though, I am a textualist and an originalist as well, I could take issue with a few of Scalia's opinions as they relate to civil liberties, particularly his deference to the present administration admidst the wave of anti-terror legislation that came after 9/11. But still, Scalia's principled jurisprudential philosophy makes the book well worth considering nonetheless. The editor Kevin Ring offers a pensive and succinct overview of Scalia's judicial philosophy at the beginning of this splendid volume.

This book contains a compilation of rulings by conservative Supreme Court associate justice Antonin Scalia, who was appointed to the bench in 1986. Includes his written opinions on religion, abortion, the ASA, gay rights, capital punishment, free speech, and affirmative action, referencing the U.S. Constitution and its historical interpretations. This book will give you an insightful look at our Supreme Court. What better time to read this then now, when some of our federal judges are making laws instead of interpreting and ruling on them as they should be.

a great book and a great read for anyone who is interested in what is really happening in the highest court in the land

Justice Scalia famously wrote that: "This Court seemed incapable of admitting that some matters - any matters, is none of its business." The Court's amateurish performance in Martin vs. PGA Tour was a case in point, where a bad law (ADA) was made worse by a muddled interpretation, where seven Justices of the highest court tried to adjudicate what is "essential" to a game of Golf!

In Morrison vs. Olson, Justice Scalia wrote a lone dissenting opinion that is long and spirited. Its brilliance only came to light when his haunting predictions came true over and over again - to the point that Congress eventually had to let the statute (of the appointment of the Independence Council) lapse. Re-reading Scalia's dissent is indeed instructional - you get to appreciate why the doctrine of separation of powers is central to the protection of freedom.

The above are just two of the many memorable opinions (both dissenting) by Scalia that are part of this book's collection. I don't always agree, in moral terms, with the legal outcome of his analyses, but I must say that he is true to his duty of protecting and defending the Constitution. His opinions are direct, persuasive and witty (which makes them fun to read), and his analyses bear an imprint of exceptionalism.

History will enshrine Scalia as perhaps the most brilliant justice who has ever served.

This book is not for everyone. It does require an intense interest in constitutional law on the part of the reader, and considerable concentration, to get the full benefit of the book. If my review here has motivated just one more person to read this fine book, I am gratified.

I echo several reviewers' sentiment that we should thank Kevin A. Ring for editing and producing this book, which includes some of Justice Scalia's most readable and memorable opinions on a number of cases involving a range of the most weighty issues of our days.

There are not many good books like this one: serious in subject, witty in presentation, mind-stimulating in arguments.

Reading Justice Scalia's opinions is at once exhilarating and saddening. His opinions are impeccably reasoned and they often mercilessly demolish the very premise of the (often) majority opinion of the Court, which leads one to seriously wonder if the High Court is not seated with some rather sloppy-thinking, or activist, justices who are there to vote their policy preference and dress it up in legal rhetoric, often with flawed logic or untenable assumptions, or both.

I can't help comparing Antonin Scalia with Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Holmes's writing had a certain poetic beauty that is rare in legal opinions. But as Judge Posner opined, his opinions were well-written, but not always well-reasoned. I say Justice's Scalia's writings are certainly well reasoned, and well written too. Of course, Holmes belonged to a different era, many of his ardent dissents then have over time become more respectable and even accepted wisdom. Scalia's writings will, I am sure, be the source of inspiration for generations of constitutional jurists and scholars.

In the dust jacket, the book purports to let "Justice Scalia speak for himself" and it sounds fairly neutral, praising his prose more than anything else.

Unfortunately, it quickly becomes clear this is more of a conservative love-fest, and at book's end, there is no longer any pretense at objectivity. Example: "In Scalia's America, freedom, democracy, and diversity would flourish...." Okaaaay.

There is no serious criticism of Scalia's opinions anywhere in the book. Which would be fine if this were truly a book that simply let Scalia speak for himself. But it isn't. Ring sings his praises at every turn, defends him against all his critics, and can seemingly find no fault with anything Scalia has ever said or written.

Many of Scalia's opinions in the book are actually very compelling, and he does have an acerbic wit. I found myself in complete agreement with Scalia in the ADA/PGA Golf Tour case, and I agreed in principle on his Affirmative Action and Death Penalty stances. So I'm not knocking this book because I dislike Scalia or his opinions. I simply think the book is operating under false pretenses.

When we get to Freedom of Speech, Ring mentions in passing that Scalia voted to uphold flag-burning as a form of speech, but doesn't explain how this passes Scalia's "originalism" test. Did Congress have flag-burning in mind when it adopted the First Amendment? If not, is there support for it in the country's legal and social traditions? If not, then how is it protected under "originalism"? Scalia avoided the question by silently joining the majority opinion. I'm guessing Ring avoided it because it didn't fit his conservative agenda.

Ring was more eager to discuss Hill v. Colorado, a case where abortion protestors were also claiming freedom of speech. Ring characterized their "speech" as nothing more than "oral protest," "counseling," and "education" on the sidewalks outside abortion clinics, neglecting to mention that some anti-abortion protestors would "yell, thrust signs in faces, and generally try to upset the patient[s] as much as possible," would surround patients and scream at them, and so on. Now, perhaps that behavior is irrelevant and should be protected the same as polite, respectful speech. But by glossing over that behavior, Ring and Scalia do a disservice to the argument.

Ring implies that Scalia is the only Justice on the Supreme Court to have a consistent judicial philosophy, that he is "unique". In fact, Ring uses the word unique so much that Scalia must be UNIQUELY unique. Does this mean that every one of the other eight Justices has no philosophy, is not unique, and is somehow less rational or less responsible, simply because they haven't publicly beaten their own drum? The answer is buried in their opinions, so until someone does a more balanced analysis, Ring's assertions need to be read with a healthy skepticism.

Kevin Ring delivers the goods in this excellent book. Ring brings Scalia to life with wit and a deep understanding of the Constitution. You don't have to be a lawyer to enjoy this book! Makes the often mysterious intricacies of the Supreme Court understandable and accessible. With the Supreme Court on the front pages, this is an excellent time to buy this book and read it.

Kevin Ring delivers the goods in this excellent book. Ring brings Scalia to life with wit and a deep understanding of the Constitution. You don't have to be a lawyer to enjoy this book! Makes the often mysterious intricacies of the Supreme Court understandable and accessible. With the Supreme Court on the front pages, this is an excellent time to buy this book and read it.

You might think that reading opinions from the Supreme Court to be deadly dull, hard to understand, and unrelated to our everyday lives. While it may be true of some justices (maybe most), it is not true of Justice Antonin Scalia. This writing is sharp, always witty, sometimes laugh out loud funny, and intellectually and philosophically delightful.

Here we get a chance to read his dissenting opinions on cases involving the separation of powers, race, abortion, death penalty, religious freedom, gender equality, free speech, non-speech and unfree speech, homosexuality, and issues concerning other rights. Since so many opinions from federal courts and especially the Supreme Court seem to be an expression of preferences and sham legal reasoning to justify the approach, it would be easy to believe that these are merely writings of conservative opinions that simply disagree with the majority in a desired outcome. However, that is not Scalia's philosophy or approach.

He believes that the Supreme Court is not the arbiter of American values. The people are. Their voice is the representative branch and the executive branch of the government. The job of the courts is to enforce the laws and reject only those that run afoul of our written Constitution. If a law violates cultural sensibilities, they have a recourse to change the laws by persuading others and electing representatives that share their views. I believe this to be correct and quite persuasive.

So, for example, if Roe v. Wade were overturned it would not outlaw abortion. In fact, the Supreme Court would have nothing to say about it. Each state could vote its own approach. Most of the problems with the courts today are their politicization because they have wandered into the fever swamps of politics rather than remaining in their Constitutional role of interpreting written law and protecting the Constitution.

This is a great book to read and can make an important contribution to our civic education. I hope everyone reads it; especially young people. Adults should read it and discuss it with their children as part of the educating of the next generation. It will also give you strong material in your discussions with your friends who belong to the "living Constitution" wing.

Great job!

You might think that reading opinions from the Supreme Court to be deadly dull, hard to understand, and unrelated to our everyday lives. While it may be true of some justices (maybe most), it is not true of Justice Antonin Scalia. This writing is sharp, always witty, sometimes laugh out loud funny, and intellectually and philosophically delightful.

Here we get a chance to read his dissenting opinions on cases involving the separation of powers, race, abortion, death penalty, religious freedom, gender equality, free speech, non-speech and unfree speech, homosexuality, and issues concerning other rights. Since so many opinions from federal courts and especially the Supreme Court seem to be an expression of preferences and sham legal reasoning to justify the approach, it would be easy to believe that these are merely writings of conservative opinions that simply disagree with the majority in a desired outcome. However, that is not Scalia's philosophy or approach.

He believes that the Supreme Court is not the arbiter of American values. The people are. Their voice is the representative branch and the executive branch of the government. The job of the courts is to enforce the laws and reject only those that run afoul of our written Constitution. If a law violates cultural sensibilities, they have a recourse to change the laws by persuading others and electing representatives that share their views. I believe this to be correct and quite persuasive.

So, for example, if Roe v. Wade were overturned it would not outlaw abortion. In fact, the Supreme Court would have nothing to say about it. Each state could vote its own approach. Most of the problems with the courts today are their politicization because they have wandered into the fever swamps of politics rather than remaining in their Constitutional role of interpreting written law and protecting the Constitution.

This is a great book to read and can make an important contribution to our civic education. I hope everyone reads it; especially young people. Adults should read it and discuss it with their children as part of the educating of the next generation. It will also give you strong material in your discussions with your friends who belong to the "living Constitution" wing.

Great job!

During his tenure on the United States Supreme Court, Justice Scalia has led a continuous assault on judicial tinkering. The rule of law, he has argued, demands that we be bound by the text of the law-not by evolving social standards, not even by some elusive authorial intent, but by the actual words of the Constitution and of the statutes passed by state and federal legislatures.

Scalia has articulated this textualist philosophy in his frequent public lectures, in his penetrating book A Matter of Interpretation, and in his many Supreme Court opinions. In Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice, attorney Kevin A. Ring collects some of the most memorable of these opinions. The stated aim of this volume is to bring to a wider audience "some of the most noteworthy, colorful, and entertaining opinions ever written by a United States Supreme Court Justice." More important, the collection traces the development of Scalia's view-derided by progressive law professors and controversial even among conservatives-that, in Ring's words, "laws-and especially that supreme law known as the Constitution of the United States-say what they mean and mean what they say."

Over the past twenty years, perhaps the happiest outcome of the Court's many miserable decisions is that they provide Scalia with occasions for writing opinions that are both persuasive and entertaining. This book contains many. This well-organized volume gives readers not only an introduction to Scalia's thought but a guided tour through the difficult issues the Supreme Court has addressed in recent years. Read together, Scalia's opinions are a bracing antidote to the legal opportunism that has infected many of the Court's recent decisions. They are also a troubling reminder that the infection continues to spread.

Monty Rainey
www.juntosociety.com

This is a wonderfully written book. I haven't come across any writer who better explains the issues and Scalia's jurisprudence than Ring, including Scalia himself.

In the first chapter, Ring clearly and crisply summarizes Scalia's interpretive methodology. The rest of the book is divided into various topics, such as separation of powers, abortion, race, religion, etc. Ring briefly explains the issues of selected cases in each topic, followed by excerpts from Scalia's (generally dissenting) opinions.

Ring's greatest achievement is avoiding polemics entirely. This is emphatically not just a book for conservatives. It's just as much for liberals who actually believe in democracy. Ring keeps his eye on the ball by emphasizing that the central issue is separation of powers (a judicial issue), not whether a policy result is good or bad (a legislative issue). In Scalia's view, separation of powers is even more important than the bill of rights in securing our liberties. Congress cannot usurp executive or judicial powers, the President cannot usurp legislative or judicial powers, and the Supreme Court cannot usurp legislative or executive powers.

Scalia's position on Constitutional rights is very simple. If the text of the Constitution does not explicitly protect the right and there was no tradition of protecting the right when the Constitution was ratified, it is not Constitutionally protected and that's the end of the analysis. If the right is to be protected, it's up to the elected members of Congress or the state legislatures, not five unelected life tenured lawyers. Any other methodology, such as one founded on the "living" Constitution or "evolving standards of decency," is nothing more than a legislative power grab. As Scalia often points out, how can an appointed committee of lawyers be better equipped to determine society's evolving standards of decency than legislators elected by that society?

Abortion is a concrete example. It's not mentioned in the text of the Constitution and there was no tradition of protecting it when the Constitution was ratified. In fact, abortion was prohibited for two hundred years after ratification. So abortion cannot be a Constitutional right and its proponents are left to the democratic process.

Instead, a majority of lawyers on the Court usurped the power to legislate on abortion. Demonstrations for and against abortion are now on the steps of the Court, instead of the state legislatures. Confirmation of Supreme Court justices has become a throughly political process. The focus is now on the political views of the nominee, not his or her judicial qualifications. All of this, of course, is to be expected from the Court's encroachment into the lawmaking power. The lawyers on the Court have become abortion referees deciding whether state laws place an "undue burden" (whatever that means) on the "right" to abortion.

Scalia's prose can be a little dense, but his logical brilliance and wit definitely come through. He is in turn sardonic and sad at how far the Court's jurisprudence has come from that envisioned by the framers. He is meticulous in deconstructing the majority's ludicrous rationales and prophetic in describing the harmful results. Scalia's most impressive opinion is perhaps his 1989 dissent on the independent counsel statute, a case in which the majority permitted legislative encroachment into the executive power. He correctly predicted the harmful results of the opinion, as the supporters of Bush I and Clinton both learned by experience.

One can only hope Scalia's defense of separation of powers will win out in the end, but it's hard to be optimistic at this point.

This guy knows how to write! I just got this book as a gift, and it's hard to put down. Hard to believe this is Ring's first book. Don't know where he learned to write, but he's pithy, informative, and fun. Scalia rocks -- I couldn't imagine finding the Supreme Court interesting, but Scalia's opinions are witty and throught-provoking. The book kind of reminds me of Bennett's Book of Virtues, but from the view of a Supreme Court jurist. Two thumbs up!

This is an excellent book that makes a very difficult subject, the United States Constitution and an even more controversial Supreme Court Justice, Scalia, easy to read and understand. Ring has taken selected issues and presented them at three levels: The first level, the issue itself i.e. Abortion or Free Speech etc. and is his own words describes the issue. At the second level he has taken the specific case that relates to the issues and explains, in plain easy to understand language, the essence of the particular case. Finally he lets Scalia speak for himself with the actual text of Scalia's opinions written for the specific decision. You do not have to be a Constitutional Scholar to gain an understanding of the issues, the Supreme Court cases or Scalia's decisions. Actually Ring makes it fun to read about the law of the land. A must read for students of the U.S. Constitution.

The beauty of this book is that you dont need to know, or care, about the inner workings of the legal system to find this book both highly amusing and informative. Scalia's opinions have some of the most subtle and biting witticisms since (maybe) Shakespeare. Supreme Court rulings have an important affect on our daily lives, but youd be hard pressed to find anyone who can quote a passage or a court case in what the mainstream might consider a social setting. I'd bet youd find this author there though, and be pretty entertained throwing some of Scalia's quips around. Highly highly recommended

Ring delves deep into Scalia's well-thought-out viewpoints while providing his own useful commentary. This is a surprisingly excellent read, both informative and historical.

Despite your political affiliation, this book captures the essence of Scalia's opinion and biting wit. While the prospect of reading a collection of legal rulings seems like a sure fire way to defeat insomnia, Scalia Dissents surprises by enlightening the reader on the issue and how Scalia interprets each with flair. Ring's choice of Scalia's opinions is excellent and his summary of the issues at hand makes the text accessible to all. Big thumbs up!