Scalia Speaks is a compilation of 48 speeches given by Scalia to sympathetic audiences about whatever Scalia thought was cool, like how cosplaying as a soldier gave Scalia essential insights into the moral value of courage, that the Nazis were socialists, and how it is irrational to to reject a priori, with no investigation, the possibility of miracles in general, and of Jesus Christ’s resurrection in particular, as though it's my job to fully investigate every occurrence of stigmata (another Scalia hobby horse).

Death by a thousand repetitions

If the compilers of these speeches really thought nothing less than forty-eight of Scalia's musings merited inclusion, then I guess I've got to treat everything as critical. It must be vital to read at least 15 different references to how homosexual rights aren't in the Constitution, which is about 15 more times than Native American rights come up.  Apparently there's some pretty important distinctions between the Catholic Irish immigrant experience and the Catholic Italian immigrant experience.  As for the African American experience, good luck finding a single mention of them in Scalia's speech about who did the actual work on George Washington's farm estate.  Quite some chutzpah to refer to Washington's commitments as occasionally stretching to manual labor.

There were forty-eight different chances to surprise us with the breadth of Scalia's knowledge and willingness to talk about experiences outside of his own.  Yet, Scalia's son and Whelan went hard on Scalia as a man whose intellectual interests start with the Federalist Papers and end with Tocqueville's Democracy in America, excluding the part where Tocqueville said slavery seemed like a pretty bad thing.  Forty-eight speeches to taunt us with the narrowness of Scalia's vision.

Nearer, My God, to Thee

A Catholic doctor cannot, consistently with his faith, perform an abortion or assist a suicide.

Scalia Speaks is clear that Scalia was a deeply religious man. What's more, religion is good for government:

What I am saying, however, is that it is contrary to our founding principles to insist that government be hostile to religion, or even to insist (as my court, alas, has done in word though not in deed) that government cannot favor religion over nonreligion.

...and whatever, I guess. The United States has unique cultural touchstones that aren't worth sifting through for the sake of forty-eight speeches.

What is relevant is that Scalia states that his religious beliefs don't affect his actual judicial decisions because there is no there is no Catholic way to interpret a text, analyze a historical tradition, or discern the meaning and legitimacy of prior judicial decisions, along with:

That is, by the way, not the position that Catholic judges are in with respect to abortion. They in no way participate in the killing of the baby. They merely hold, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s determination of what natural law requires, that the government cannot prevent that killing.

It's not the place here to debate whether particular decisions by Scalia were religiously influenced, but there's an arrogance to Scalia's position that:

(1) a consistent Catholic can only carry out particular jobs in certain ways; whereas

(2) a judge is not similarily constrained by such religious beliefs and all they do is a straight interpretation of the law as it is.

I'm uncomfortable about these positions, independently and in combination.  It seems pretty wild that Scalia can make broad statements about what it takes in one's job to comply with particular belief systems while pompously holding himself above it all.

Original way to make it as I say

Scalia is the fountainhead of "originalism", a method of interpretation of the Constitution and other laws.  Scalia sets it out in a few speeches...

...and I'm not going to discuss them. These speeches are given at the softest of forums. Scalia gets to say what he wants how he wants. He gets to summarise DC v Heller as though it was a lay up, not a series of contortions to get round a clearly conflicting precedent. He doesn't have to deal with a case like Castle Rock vs Gonzales, where he cuts pretty sharply across originalism while pretending otherwise. Nor does the collection mention the massively impactful Citizens United v FEC, which he wrote a concurrence for.  Seems like that case's legacy isn't an originalist one.

If you think "orginalists" adhere to the original meaning of the relevant documents and don't engage in judicial activism, fine, tuck yourself into bed at night with a hot cocoa while reading Scalia dancing in the end zone about how brilliant he is.  I'm not interested in the detail. Better people than me have punched holes in it. Scalia probably spoke on those cases further at some stage, but if the collators of his speeches aren’t going to mention them, over how homosexuality is definitely not in the Constitution, why should I be obliged to engage in good faith with his interpretive approach?

What I would say is that this collection confirms that Scalia was an extremely religious, return to (his idea of) tradition kind of guy with a narrow perspective on the history that he claimed informed his decisions. Conservative thought has being defining the terms of debate for a while now, with liberals unnecessarily conceding things such as Roe v Wade getting the "right" result by a "bad" decision. Scalia Speaks is another blast in that direction. Don't feel you have to accept its premise.