A01=Antonin Scalia
A23=Amy Gutmann
Age Group_Uncategorized
Age Group_Uncategorized
Ambiguity (law)
Amendment
Antonin Scalia
Attempt
Author_Antonin Scalia
automatic-update
B01=Amy Gutmann
Bill of rights
Brown v. Board of Education
Capital punishment
Category1=Non-Fiction
Category=LA
Category=LAB
Category=LNAA
Category=LNDX
Codification (law)
Common law
Concurrence
Constitutional law
Constitutionalism
Constitutionality
COP=United States
Criminal law
Cruel and unusual punishment
Defendant
Delivery_Delivery within 10-20 working days
Due process
Due Process Clause
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
English law
eq_isMigrated=2
eq_nobargain
Equal Protection Clause
Ex post facto law
Federal Court (Canada)
Federal judge
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Freedom of speech
Griswold v. Connecticut
Hugo Black
Intention (criminal law)
Judge
Judicial interpretation
Judicial opinion
Judiciary
Jurisprudence
Language_English
Laurence Tribe
Law of the United States
Law school
Lawmaking
Lawyer
Legal education
Legislation
Legislative history
Legislative intent
Legislator
Legislature
Marbury v. Madison
Original meaning
Originalism
PA=Available
Politics
Precedent
Presumption (canon law)
Price_€20 to €50
Prior restraint
PS=Active
Ratification
Repeal
Right to keep and bear arms
Ronald Dworkin
Rule of law
Separation of powers
softlaunch
State law (United States)
Statute
Statutory interpretation
Statutory law
Substantive due process
Supreme Court of the United States
Textualism
Tort
United States Bill of Rights
United States Constitution
Writing
Product details
- ISBN 9780691174044
- Weight: 255g
- Dimensions: 140 x 216mm
- Publication Date: 30 Jan 2018
- Publisher: Princeton University Press
- Publication City/Country: US
- Product Form: Paperback
- Language: English
Secure
checkout
Fast Shipping
Easy returns
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.
Featuring a new foreword that discusses Scalia's impact, jurisprudence, and legacy, this witty and trenchant exchange illuminates the brilliance of one of the most influential legal minds of our time.
Antonin Scalia (1936-2016) was an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for three decades.
