A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (The University Center for Human Values Series)

A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (The University Center for Human Values Series)

Antonin Scalia
Format: Paperback
  • $18.95
  • $15.34 & this item ships for FREE
  • $3.61 (19%)
  • Usually ships in 24 hours
55 new from $9.01
79 used from $3.18

Details

  • Paperback: 176 pages
  • Publisher: Princeton University Press; First Paperback Edition edition (July 27, 1998)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN: 0691004005
  • EAN: 9780691004006
  • Item Dimensions: 6.1 x 0.5 x 9.2 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 0.6 pounds

Description

We are all familiar with the image of the immensely clever judge who discerns the best rule of common law for the case at hand. According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a judge like this can maneuver through earlier cases to achieve the desired aim--"distinguishing one prior case on his left, straight-arming another one on his right, high-stepping away from another precedent about to tackle him from the rear, until (bravo!) he reaches the goal--good law." But is this common-law mindset, which is appropriate in its place, suitable also in statutory and constitutional interpretation? In a witty and trenchant essay, Justice Scalia answers this question with a resounding negative.


In exploring the neglected art of statutory interpretation, Scalia urges that judges resist the temptation to use legislative intention and legislative history. In his view, it is incompatible with democratic government to allow the meaning of a statute to be determined by what the judges think the lawgivers meant rather than by what the legislature actually promulgated. Eschewing the judicial lawmaking that is the essence of common law, judges should interpret statutes and regulations by focusing on the text itself. Scalia then extends this principle to constitutional law. He proposes that we abandon the notion of an everchanging Constitution and pay attention to the Constitution's original meaning. Although not subscribing to the "strict constructionism" that would prevent applying the Constitution to modern circumstances, Scalia emphatically rejects the idea that judges can properly "smuggle" in new rights or deny old rights by using the Due Process Clause, for instance. In fact, such judicial discretion might lead to the destruction of the Bill of Rights if a majority of the judges ever wished to reach that most undesirable of goals.


This essay is followed by four commentaries by Professors Gordon Wood, Laurence Tribe, Mary Ann Glendon, and Ronald Dworkin, who engage Justice Scalia's ideas about judicial interpretation from varying standpoints. In the spirit of debate, Justice Scalia responds to these critics.

Similar Books

Cart0 item(s)
Best Sellers
Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens United
Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens United
Statutes, Regulation, and Interpretation: Legislation and Administration in the Republic of Statute (American Casebook Series)
Statutes, Regulation, and Interpretation: Legislation and Administration in the Republic of Statute ...
The Constitution Today: Timeless Lessons for the Issues of Our Era
The Constitution Today: Timeless Lessons for the Issues of Our Era
LAW DICTIONARY

Related legal terms and Law definition:

debtor in possession
a person or corporation who has filed a bankruptcy petition but remains in possession of property upon which a creditor has a lien or similar security interest. Section 1107 of the Bankruptcy Code places the debtor in possession in the position of a fiduciary, with the rights and powers of a chapter 11 trustee, and it requires the debtor to perform of all … Full Definition »
Personal Bankruptcy >> Bankruptcy Law