Scalia (A review)

09 Feb, 2025

Well, it's not March, but I've finished two books on my January Reading List: The book on Scalia (#7) and the book on remaining silent (#4).

For the first book, You Have the Right to Remain Silent (by James Duane), James essentially gives an overview for why you shouldn't go down to the police station for "volunteer testimony" as well as how to get out of an interrogation in a way so you won't get convicted later.

Here are the key things I wrote down about the book: - When confronted by the police on the street (e.g. in some back alley), the only two questions you should (and are required to) answer to are "Who are you?" and "What are you doing right now?". Any other question about the past, present, future, or intentions are just information that you needlessly divulge and should be mitigated by saying "I do not wish to discuss this matter." - Be courteous but firm to police officers. There's no need to be rude, but when you assert your 6th Amendment right to a lawyer or 5th Amendment right to self-incrimination, say it boldly and without wavering, and while politeness is nice, being too polite could lead to getting your rights rejected (e.g. "May I have a lawyer?" vs. "I want a lawyer."). - If ever you're called by some bureucrat to be "interviewed" for something, just kindly ask them to "put it in writing," so first there's a paper trail for everything that's ever said (so that if they mess up on their part you have evidence) and second you can consult with lawyers about what to exactly write.

Anyways, the book is short and neat and also a little too repetitive so I'll give it 4/5 stars. It's a good read to all future criminals (and on that matter, citizens) as the information is invaluable to your liberty, but on the other hand, if you don't read it willingly, the legal jargon may get to you, and the repetitiveness may bore.

The second book -- The Essential Scalia -- is a lightly edited/filtered compilation of Scalia's writings -- his dissents, concurrences, opinions, speeches, and writings. Each piece is edited in such a way as to ensure maximum clarity (legal clarity that is) while retaining the wit and humor of Scalia. In this way, the book is really well 'written' or structured -- a 20 page Supreme Court opinion is just super long even if it is funny and amusing, but when condensed into 3-4 pages¹, it makes for a readable read and I (a student, someone who is a legal amateur) can grasp those main ideas and Scalia's Line of Reasoning.

Moreover, the book contains many well-chosen opinions as most opinion in there are fun/witty and/or super interesting and/or deal with a really interesting legal question. In this way, Scalia can be seen as guiding the reader towards his Textualist interpretation of the law, even when that interpretation conflicts with the reader's beliefs. For example, one piece that made me think tremendously was Scalia's take on affirmative action (the opinion in the book starts at the paragraph in the middle of page 6 and ends on page 9 where it says "...because it is racist.") -- I disagree with the conclusion, yet the way in which he so eloquently describes his idea (which is pretty rock-solid) almost sways me into accepting his conclusion because it is such a good argument. In this way, although Scalia leans on the conservative (especially in some criminal rights cases), reading his opinions really make me question my beliefs as well, he just argues and writes so damn well.

I would recommend this book to anyone interested in law and just reading opinions (like me) and/or for anyone who likes arguing and getting their opinion changed. Scalia is a beast in terms of his ability to construct arguments, and when combined with the wit and humor and apt analogies that he applies, there's no wonder that his 'Ninograms' are beloved.

4.8/5 stars. Not because I agree with the book and/or that it was enlightening, but just because Scalia's arguments are so well made that I must naturally question myself in disagreeing with him.

Note that some parts of the book (on too complicated legal topics) were boring for me, but feel free to skip around. I'm sure Scalia would've loved for me to read all his opinions, but this book is structured in a way where skipping around is possible and as such, take advantage of it :).