|
| 
 enlarge | Author: Kevin A. Ring
Publisher: Regnery Publishing, Inc.
Category: Book
List Price: $27.95
Buy Used: $9.83
You Save: $18.12 (65%)
New (24) Used (20) Collectible (2) from $9.83
Rating:  17 reviews
Sales Rank: 22894
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 256
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.2
Dimensions (in): 9 x 5.7 x 1.4
ISBN: 0895260530
Dewey Decimal Number: 348.7326
EAN: 9780895260536
ASIN: 0895260530
Publication Date: November 25, 2004
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: light shelf wear on DUST JACKET no marks pages look great (SHIP SAME OR NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ORDER 6 DAYS A WEEK BUBBLE MAILER AND TRACKING)
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Scalia dissents May 30, 2007
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
a great book and a great read for anyone who is interested in what is really happening in the highest court in the land
In His Own League January 27, 2007
5 out of 9 found this review helpful
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.
 Partly polemic, partly disingenuous, but still partly interesting February 17, 2006
19 out of 27 found this review helpful
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.
Timely and insightful January 20, 2006
5 out of 7 found this review helpful
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.
Surprisingly delightful reading. Important Constitutional reasoning that everyone should read. November 14, 2005
8 out of 12 found this review helpful
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!
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
